Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal
(that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a
long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this,
but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory
options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a
unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold
something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the
US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and
there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.
Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in
2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the
same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big
difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in
Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under
attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US
do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?
The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an
excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its
adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the
F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if
the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a
clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is
at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.
Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real
electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this
means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all
other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare,
passive engagement, etc.).
This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that
the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and
that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies
will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely
irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a
catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians
will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of
it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US
shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent
commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship
between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and
stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of
virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is
exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already!
Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo)
strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended
town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming,
re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the
Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at
this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the
Neocon point of view:
Possible outcomes
US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win
Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes
A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War
v2 in Europe.
The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is
the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very
little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.
Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the
Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.
Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of
view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any
category.
The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were
not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be
busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying
again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal
(that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a
long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this,
but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory
options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a
unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold
something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the
US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and
there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.
Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in
2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the
same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big
difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in
Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under
attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US
do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?
The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an
excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its
adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the
F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if
the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a
clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is
at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.
Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real
electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this
means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all
other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare,
passive engagement, etc.).
This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that
the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and
that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies
will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely
irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a
catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians
will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of
it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US
shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent
commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship
between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and
stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of
virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is
exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already!
Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo)
strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended
town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming,
re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the
Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at
this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the
Neocon point of view:
Possible outcomes
US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win
Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes
A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War
v2 in Europe.
The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is
the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very
little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.
Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the
Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.
Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of
view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any
category.
The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were
not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be
busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying
again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and
misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the
Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The
Daily Caller.
WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just
get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not
only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and
congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files
to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?
WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE
DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED
TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm
Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go
forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'.
Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so
by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong
don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request-
just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to
its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism –
smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing
any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope
that many commentators have long predicted.
The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.
The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published
this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be
extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States
no evidence needed except
profiling based on Russian heritage.
The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site,
has
obtained a bombshell internal email
related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian
interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media,
mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or
Russian descent" relevant to its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from
neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats
or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a
potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators
have long predicted.
Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened
elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former
deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper;
and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech),
filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.
The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence
in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived
as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or
confusion over sources of information."
The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party")
expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").
The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural
and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic
process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism
and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.
According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country,"
which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies,
nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest,
to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced
to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."
In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web
operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.
In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack
depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this
amicus brief is one such pronouncement.
In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious,
ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to
stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these
former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.
Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation
of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize
and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.
Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated
that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking
dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of
a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC,
et al.
It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes
were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.
"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including
former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence
James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably
includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."
How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)
In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association".
It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea:
https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641
At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason
they're so desperate.
They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position
is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe
"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls
a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the
bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words,
'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.
Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.
They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United
States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.
Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . .
. To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.
We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize
things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come
full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...
All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.
John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks
before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election
appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.
Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO
jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a really interesting player as for DNC leak... This Anan brothers story is simply incredible
and probably hides some really nasty staff related to DNC espionage over congress members.
Notable quotes:
"... To briefly recap, our report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments. ..."
"... would frequently simply go across the street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one. ..."
"... While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new Politico expose. - Daily Caller ..."
"... "Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation on US soil." ..."
"... In February, the Daily Caller dropped two bombshells: that the Awans were under criminal investigation after being caught accessing congressional computers without permission, and they had borrowed, laundered, and never repaid $100,000 from a shady Iraqi expat physician – Dr. Ali al-Attar , a Hezbollah-linked fugitive who led a group of other expats which regularly advised the Bush administration on their plans to invade Iraq in 2002-2003 ( source ). ..."
"... Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation. ..."
"... It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of a typical car business who said they were stiffed. ..."
"... CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties, the lawsuits say . ..."
"... Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans . ..."
"... The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas -- threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents Florida. - Daily Caller ..."
"... " It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said. " It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ." ..."
"... If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in D.C. ..."
"... While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison cell better than the alternative. ..."
Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller pointed out a mysterious twist in the case of Pakistani national and long-time DNC IT contractor,
Imran Awan - who was arrested in July at Dulles Airport while trying to flee the country after having wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan
.
Awan's court date on four counts related to bank fraud, which had already been reschedule twice, has disappeared from the docket
altogether:
Which begs the question - did Imran Awan cut a deal with Federal prosecutors?
Of note - Imran's wife, Hina Alvi - who had fled to Pakistan in March with the Awan children,
struck a deal with federal prosecutors in September to return to the U.S. and face charges. One wonders why Alvi would willingly
leave the relative security of her family in Pakistan to face arraignment in the United States?
To briefly recap, our
report from last week , the Awan family - which was employed by quite a number of House Democrats, had full access to highly
sensitive Congressional computer systems , both on-site and remotely from Pakistan , with which they are suspected of committing
a variety of crimes - including brokering classified information to hostile foreign governments.
Of note, the Awans had access to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - whose members have top secret clearance
and are looking into Russian election interference.
The Pakistani nationals also operated a shady used car dealership in Falls Church, VA operating under the title "CIA" which Luke
Rosiak of The Daily Caller reported has all the signs of a money laundering operation .
On its Facebook page, CIA's "staff" were fake personalities such as "James Falls O'Brien," whose photo was taken from a
hairstyle mode l catalog, and "Jade Julia," whose image came from a web page called "Beautiful Girls Wallpaper."
If a customer showed up looking to buy a car from Cars International A, often referred to as CIA, Abid Awan -- who was managing
partner of the dealership while also earning $160,000 handling IT for House Democrats -- would frequently simply go across the
street to longstanding dealership called AAA Motors and get one.
While Imran and Abid Awan ran their car dealership in Falls Church, Va. in the early part of the decade, Drug Enforcement Agency
officials a few miles away in Chantilly were learning that the Iranian-linked terrorist group frequently deployed used car dealerships
in the US to launder money and fund terrorism , according to an explosive new
Politico
expose. -
Daily Caller
"Based on the modest way Awan was living, it is my opinion that he was sending most of his money to a group or criminal organization
that could very well be connected with the Pakistani government ," said Wayne Black - a private investigator who worked in Janet
Reno's Miami public corruption unit, adding " My instincts tell me Awan was probably operating a foreign intelligence gathering operation
on US soil."
The money which the Awans borrowed was moved from Ali Al-Attar through accounts intended for Fairfax County real estate. Both
Imran Awan and Khattak -- who also put up $200,000 in cash as an investor in CIA -- had realtors licenses.
Dr. Ali al-Attar
Al-Attar's license to practice medicine was revoked by the Maryland State Board of Physicians and he had to pay a $50,000 fine
for unprofessional conduct, healthcare fraud, and failure to cooperate with an investigation.
It's not clear where the dealership's money was going, because it was sued by at least five different people on all ends of
a typical car business who said they were stiffed.
CIA didn't pay the security deposit, rent or taxes for its building, it didn't pay wholesalers who provided cars, and it sold
broken cars to people and then refused to honor the warranties,
the lawsuits say .
Moreover, when the Awans' shady car dealership ran into money troubles, Florida Congressman Theo Deutch began paying a monthly
salary to a man who had threatened to sue the Awans .
Rep Theo Deutch (D-FL), Awan Benefactor
The brothers had numerous additional sources of income, all of which seemed to disappear. While they were supposedly working
for the House, the brothers were running a car dealership full-time that didn't pay its vendors, and after one -- Rao Abbas --
threatened to sue them, he began receiving a paycheck from Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL), who like Wasserman Schultz represents
Florida. - Daily Caller
The Awans were also turned into the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) by two renters occupying a home they owned , after
they found "wireless routers, hard drives that look like they tried to destro y, laptops, [and] a lot of brand new expensive toner"
in the garage.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity over concerns for his wife's naval career, the former Marine told the Daily Caller:
" It was in the garage. They recycled cabinets and lined them along the walls. They left in a huge hurry," the Marine said.
" It looks like government-issued equipment. We turned that stuff over ."
If the Awans cut a deal , one might speculate that a liberal prosecutor and a DNC-friendly court might be conducting a dog-and-pony
show. For months, rumors swirled that brother of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Wasserman was
handling the prosecution - however court filings reveal that assistant U.S. Attorney Michael J. Marando is handling the case. Marando
is married to JoAnna Wasserman - an employee of the U.S. Holocaust Museum in
D.C.
While JoAnna Wasserman shares a maiden name with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her parents are named Mark and Donna, while Debbie
Wasserman Shultz's parents are Larry and Ann Wasserman. Plus, if there's any relation, JoAnna Wasserman got all of the family's good
genetics.
US Attorney Michael J. Marando and wife JoAnna Wasserman (top). Steve Schultz and wife Debbie Wasserman Schultz (bottom)
While the notion that Imran Awan cut a deal based on his name vanishing from the court calendar, Federal prosecutors certainly
have enough evidence against the Awan clan to put them away for a long time. Perhaps they've decided they like the outside of a prison
cell better than the alternative.
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Back in August of 2016, which feels like
millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn
Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled "
Democrats'
Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
". I took note of the
article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't
really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.
After the election I started getting comments on my
anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to
respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in
love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my
interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie
Spies Like Us
. I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing
propaganda.
Now these comments have become a daily
occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of
being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my
criticism of the Democratic party.
And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to
publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a
hit piece
on me last month which
reported
completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false
equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their
newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his
claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then
republished
without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact
apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.
As I pointed out in
my response to the Rantt smear piece
, Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it
took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the
first one
, which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in
full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the
obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before
a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for
decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper
in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.
With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his
chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian
political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics.
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government
The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully
funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony
alert).
That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists
should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics
(another irony alert) of Russia.
But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US
Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED
to interfere in it's elections.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
"... "The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike" concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the event of deployment of weapons in space." ..."
"... Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad news, depending on political decisions. ..."
"... The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War. ..."
"The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced
as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific
region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike"
concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the
event of deployment of weapons in space."
Indeed, the United States' strategic conventional capability has been a nightmare for
Russian military planners since at least 1999, when it was employed in the Balkans. The initial
Russian response was to increase reliance on nuclear weapons, which were assigned a mission of
limited nuclear strike in response to a large-scale conventional attack. Moscow stated,
however, that this was a temporary fix and that reliance on nuclear weapons would again
decrease when it acquired a conventional strategic capability. Last month, Valery Gerasimov,
the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, confirmed that Moscow planned to
reassign some deterrence missions from nuclear to conventional assets at an undefined future
time.
Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad
news, depending on political decisions.
The potential good news is that being on the same page makes arms-control dialogue easier.
For many years, the United States refused to discuss strategic conventional weapons at
arms-control talks while Russia relied on the comfort of preserving a monopoly on these assets.
That this position is outdated and counterproductive for U.S. interests became clear at least
in 2013, if not earlier -- at least for the handful of analysts who took Russian intentions
seriously. Washington seems to be catching up with reality, which helps establish a common
agenda as well as opening prospects for an effort to regulate such weapons. Perhaps we can then
stabilize the strategic landscape sufficiently to prevent not only nuclear war, but also a
large-scale conventional conflict that might escalate to nuclear clashes.
The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a
dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is
contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of
operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More
troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that
we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an
arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and
equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War.
Dr. Nikolai Sokov is a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation
Studies.
Nick • 7 hours ago
America can ill afford another "Arms race", to put it simply we're in debt up to our
eyeballs. However there's many in DC who yearn for a new "cold war" but more specifically the
"arms race" that would come with it, just the same.
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting
this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.
The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and
NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed
Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.
The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The
goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.
The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher
round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More LikeShare
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US,
ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common
person in the US.
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians
has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))
For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt
your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish
Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.
For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan
did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into
Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.
Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But
still not advisable to poke that bear further.
Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"
Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham
Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that
way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered
Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be
careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more
See More LikeShare
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help
us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook,
to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions
pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that
what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More LikeShare Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds
... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072
198
The new 55-page "America First" National
Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as
"revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the
United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to
build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as
"reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a
multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant
state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing
geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last
September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns
over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due
regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the
excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total
reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and
strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat"
to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently
announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems
regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have
increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on
Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone,
bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China
International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private,
Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global
transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read
the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked
international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets
overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide
to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading
mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching
its first $1 billion
yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a
long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade,
moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all
either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been
extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to
focus on trading
physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX
actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold.
Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be
able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been
discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a
more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what
used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the
public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities
must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries.
Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt –
and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened
when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to
issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in
2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully
convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange
(INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were
supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the
fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The
era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark
to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite
discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and
Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in
Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's
crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's
Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by
other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point,
remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan
internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by
DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan
with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed
railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway,
the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that
BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of
new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of
corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle
East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with
– what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about
it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's
lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also
in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of
Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it
accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for
oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share:
"They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top
customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for
Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the
petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent
European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue
treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the
acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to
embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling
oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is
replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently
evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is
that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be
certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently
deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than
149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the
NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that
pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a
multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition
for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO,
which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral
and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the
petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back
in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS
counterpunch.
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates,
gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like
they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless
paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with
gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next
century or so.
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm
drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war
with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you
pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to
world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what
you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and
your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope
it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA
plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US
former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep
sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with
drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and
sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury
criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing
their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the
market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep
the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal
reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury
Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they
sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the
paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and
Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA
financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted
prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were
supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for
"safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade
centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge
discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all
the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat
their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more...
So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge
discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I
understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s
to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going
to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of
Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be
worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and
default..?
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify
their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking
too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is
all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt
practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with
them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over
them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their
people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth
they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen
loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic
reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal
reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work
as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to
produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to
give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with
stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true
owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings,
queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see
themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal
chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political
whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming,
or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating,
and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil,
and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming,
will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other
sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else
forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and
their neighbors.
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is
still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the
huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner
on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price
down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a
poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should.
But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just
sitting in the ground.
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the
beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in
terror.
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the
basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now
that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots
bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got
your back as always.
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power
since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by
the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking
accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't
work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile
baby rapers.
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they
think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is
Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow
small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John
Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That
is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the
Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab
them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the
SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries.
Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of
Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the
Debt!
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves,
and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump
change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement
accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds
which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was
given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to
you
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of
Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016,
the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around
$800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and
low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For
2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for
2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation
according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China
central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt
to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de
facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US
Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of
gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal
to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its
reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold
holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's
central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC
revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's
central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm
bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in
this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are
uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine
like poroschenko ?
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why
not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask
yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia
almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back
all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying
to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because
you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin?
In ww2 of course!
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing
everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather
see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this
situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But
the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil.
And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was
sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands
International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can
defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because
we will watch it out our front windows.
UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Crimea Human Rights Violations
The resolution was approved by 71 member states, including Canada, the United States
and the EU. Twenty-five countries, including Russia, China, Iran, India and Syria, voted
against the measure, while 77 delegations, mainly from Latin America and Africa, abstained
from the vote.
"[The resolution] condemns violations, abuses, measures and practices of
discrimination against the residents of the temporarily occupied Crimea, including Crimean
Tatars, as well as Ukrainians and persons belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, by
the Russian occupation authorities," the resolution said on Tuesday.
The Senator from the Crimea has given an assessment of the UN General Assembly
resolution
The Senator from the Crimean Peninsula, Olga Kovitide, has reacted to the UN General
Assembly resolution, in which RF is called "an occupying power".
Earlier, the Press Secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, said the
wording of the UN General Assembly resolution on the Crimea as wrong.
"We believe this language is incorrect and do not agree with them", the Kremlin
representative told reporters whilst commenting on the document.
Kovitide said that the Russian Federation had clearly stated that the issue of the
Crimea is closed. "The Crimea is not a problem: the Crimea is Russian territory, and any
decisions and resolutions that are contrary to the legitimate will of the Crimean people
shall never be accepted", the politician said in comments to the portaliz.ru
.
They just don't seem to get it, do they?
The people have decided, not arseholes in Kiev or at the UN or EU.
Does not the term " We, the people ring a bell deep in the canyons of the
collective historical memory of those Western "democrats"?
We the People of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do hereby recognize the Constitution of the Russian Federation and with sound mind
and a clear conscience do declare that the aforementioned republic is now a member state
within that Federation and that the citizens of that self-same republic shall henceforth be
citizens of the Russian Federation.
CIS states that voted against the UN resolution that the Crimea is "occupied": Armenia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan did not to vote for this uncomfortable anti-Russian
resolution (or could not?). They are not listed even among the abstentions.
The big ones that voted against were China and India.
Also against: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, The Philippines, Serbia, Syria,
Venezuela, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Eritrea, Myanmar, South Africa, The Sudan, Uganda and
Zimbabwe.
So it is clear that Russia must face the facts and must immediately start moving out its
occupation army from the Crimea in preparation for handing back the peninsula to the Ukraine
-- or else!
So as long ago promised, there will soon be a Ukrainian victory parade in Simferopol!
The Ukrainian politicians always reckon everything which goes in their favour is 'immensely
powerful', and always make sure to publicly thank countries for even the slightest
acquiescence, so as to make clear that they unquestioningly support Ukraine and its position.
It's just their way of 'penciling in' friends and annoying Russia.
China voted against it rather than abstaining. Driving China and Russia into an alliance
was the biggest mistake the USA ever made, because there is no way NATO could defeat both
That's it; get that useless waster Trump out of there, and get Obama back in the White House.
When Obama left, Russia was friendless and alone, without allies, and its economy was in
tatters. Trump has barely had the job five minutes, and already Russia is half of America's
problems with achieving economic dominance! What the hell is going on??
It explicitly states that "the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to
violations, cheating or economic aggression" .
Lucky for America that other nations and blocs turn a blind eye to economic aggression, or
America would be dead a thousand times over – there is no more economically aggressive
nation on the earth. What would you call sanctions imposed – supposedly for the benefit
of Europe – which Washington will now not let Europe back away from, and stubborn
efforts to block an advantageous energy pipeline to Europe so that the USA has a better
market for its own product? I'd call that pretty aggressive.
One of Russia's biggest oil companies, Tatneft, has been doing business in Crimea
despite the risk of being placed on a U.S. sanctions blacklist, according to company
documents and a source close to Tatneft.
Most big Russian oil firms pulled out of Crimea after Washington imposed sanctions over
Moscow's annexation of the region from Ukraine in 2014 and threatened to put any company
operating on the peninsula on its list of sanctioned entities.
Additional reporting by David Axelrod in SEVASTOPOL, Crimea, Agnieszka Barteczko in
WARSAW, Wojciech Zurawski in KRAKOW, Joel Schectman in WASHINGTON and Alexei Yarkovoy and
Olga Yagova in MOSCOW, Editing by Timothy Heritage Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
####
Neuters, acting as an arm of the United States government, hunting high and hunting low
for Russian subterfuge of United States imposed sanction, in this case a lonely Crimean fuel
station. Such groundbreaking investigative reporting of the highest order! Prize
nominations for Neuters on the way. Not a shred of shame. Standards & Principles my
ass!
Indeed I do! There was the fear in the early 1990s that it might have voted for
'independence' as Chechnya did (Tartarstan did not sign the initial Russian Federation
agreement in 1992 & their referendum on 'sovereignty' passed in 1993), but thought better
of it and got quite a sweet deal with Moscow instead which was supposed to be up for
renewal/renegotiation quite some years ago but I've not heard of since. Tartarstan is quite
the performer in aerospace and engineering technologies, the Kazan Aviation Factory
(Tupolev):
On the one hand, the western press sermonizes, hands folded to convey pathos, on the terrible
plight of the Crimeans – mistreated, misguided, struggling. On the other, it does
everything in its power to ensure nobody can do business there, and says nothing when Ukraine
attempts to starve and freeze them into submission.
Oh, look; isn't that sweet? The IOC is going to hold a medals ceremony at Pyeongchang, at
which athletes who were deemed to have been cheated out of medals by the doping
dreaming-of-Stalin Russian athletes at Sochi will be
recognized as the champions they would have been . Probably. So if you won bronze, you
might get that upgraded to a gold like anti-doping crusader Beckie
Scott did . You know, that's what makes me so proud of the west; they don't just accept
it when they're beaten – the tough get going, baby, and they simply hold a new medal
ceremony and award themselves medals. They'll want to get their upgrades quickly, before
'Curveball' Rodchenkov's latest database story falls apart and they have to admit once again
that they have nothing. And hey; it's a Canadian
tradition – if you don't win, just make a big stink until you are awarded a medal,
too.
Anything to further provoke and humiliate the Russians. I can't imagine what measures will
be taken to ensure Russian athletes do not win any medals at Pyeongchang – perhaps they
will have to start 5 seconds after the rest of the field, as a further justified penalty for
their cheating. Or wear one sneaker and one boot.
Mark, you were right to link that 2002 Olympics when Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze were forced to
share their gold medal with the Canadian pair. Who should have been satisifed with the
Silver, but decided to throw a big tantrum, like two big babies.
When the Olympic Committee gave in to the Canadians (who were backed by Uncle Sam on skates),
that was the moment when Pandora's Box was opened all the way. Prior to that, I think the
rule was pretty much, that judges decisions are final. Unless you can prove that the judges
were bribed, then their word should be final. Especially in this case, where the judges could
prove with chapter and verse why Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze performed a superior program and
earned more points.
By the way, I have met both Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze, they are wonderful people as well
as brilliant skaters. And my taking their side against the Canadian pair is not because they
are Russians, either. My conscience is clean in this regard.
Because when the opposite happened, and Russian skater Plushchenko tried to dispute his loss
to the American Evan Lycasek, I took Lycasek's side.
Plushchenko's argument was, in essence, "Well, I had a quad in my program, and Evan didn't,
so I should get the gold."
Lycasek didn't have a quad, but he compensated for it by racking up more points in other
parts of his program. He won fair and square, and Plushchenko showed poor sportsmanship at
the time, he should have simply walked up to Lycasek and shaked his hand.
Similarly, the two Canadian twats argued that their program was superior to
Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze because they "skated cleanly", and the latter had one little bobble
on one landing of one jump. It doesn't matter. Berezhnaya could have fallen on her ass and
still won, they racked up more points with more difficult elements. Plus, their skating was
superior in general, they had more flow and better edgework.
It's all about the points, which is why people should not second-guess the judges. The
judges are the experts here, not the public, nor even the skaters themselves.
I don't really want to blame the Americans, because it seems even to me that I am doing that
a lot lately and I am trying conscientiously to be fair. But I believe that without American
backing and encouragement – as well as that of other western nations – the
Canadian pair would have stopped whining and accepted the decision. I wouldn't say Canada was
particularly beloved of the USA; they were simply a means to an end, which was to prevent
Russia from a clean win. I thought the Canadian pair skated a very clean and
professional-looking program – flawless, even – but it was unquestionably a safer
and less complicated one.
How sad is the world when even figure skating must be weighed in its political impact?
As the Pyeongchang Games kick off in February, it will also mark five years since American
Olympian Kara Goucher alerted USADA to
doping at The Oregon Project , Nike's program for training American distance runners for
the Olympics. Five years since USADA was tipped off, two years since the scandal was publicly
announced, and what? What do you think – the investigation is still ongoing. I'll tell
you what – get Richard McLaren, Dickie Pound, Gunter Younger and the WADA road show in
there – it only took them a couple of days to find the 'evidence' in the
Moscow database, which it allegedly received 'from a whistleblower' according to the New York
Times and from Rodchenkov himself according to other sources, conclusively proved at last
that Russia had a state-sponsored doping program. But investigations of the Land Of The Free
in The Land Of The Free well, they take much longer. It's a time zone thing, I
think.
The controversial decision to award the 2021 World Athletics Championships to Eugene,
Oregon, is being investigated by the FBI and the Criminal Division of America's Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), the BBC has learned.
The US city was awarded the event in 2015 with athletics' governing body the IAAF
bypassing the usual formal bidding process.
French prosecutors investigating corruption within the IAAF launched their own inquiry
into the awarding of the event in 2015.
Former IAAF president Lamine Diack, who is now effectively under house arrest in France
over corruption allegations, was at the centre of the decision.
Eugene was handed the event despite strong interest from the Swedish city of
Gothenburg.
The Oregon city is closely associated with Nike, whose birthplace is only a few miles
away.
Nike funds much of the University of Oregon's sports facilities, where many of Eugene 2021
events will be held.
A BBC story in November 2015 suggested the IAAF president Lord Coe may have lobbied his
predecessor over the bid, and revealed he had discussed it with a senior Nike executive.
At that time Lord Coe was paid £100,000 a year as an ambassador for Nike. Lord Coe
denied he had lobbied anyone on behalf of Eugene's bid.
However, he stepped down from his Nike role – which he had held for 38 years –
later that month saying accusations of a conflict of interest were "a distraction" and "not
good for Nike or the IAAF".
Bjorn Eriksson, who was the head of the Gothenburg team denied the opportunity to stage a
rival bid, said it had been a 'violation of fair play.'
Now, the BBC understands, the American authorities – including tax investigators at
the IRS – are seeking to investigate if there has been any wrongdoing committed in the
US, bringing to total number of agencies investigating the awarding of the championships to
three.
A spokeswoman for the IAAF and Lord Coe said she was unaware of any FBI and IRS
probes.
"The IAAF team has not received notification from the FBI or IRS. However we are committed
to working closely with any key investigation, as we do with the French investigation team,
and will take action if proof is found of any wrong doing in an IAAF bidding process."
Both the FBI and IRS have yet to respond to the BBC.
The FBI famously investigated corruption in football's world governing body Fifa,
resulting in guilty pleas from numerous high-ranking officials.
The background
The Eugene bid was led by Vin Lananna's TrackTown USA, another organisation with close
links to Nike.
The 2015 BBC investigation uncovered emails which claim Coe – an ambassador for
sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics – "reached out" to Diack
with his support for Eugene's bid.
After of losing out in a bid to host the 2019 championships to Doha, Lananna and TrackTown
USA quickly turned their attention to 2021, and began lobbying the IAAF.
Coe had been on the IAAF evaluation commission which visited Doha, Eugene, and the other
unsuccessful bidder for 2019, Barcelona.
An email sent by Nike executive Craig Masback to Lananna suggested that Coe lobbied on
Eugene's behalf.
The email, titled '2021' and in which Coe is referred to as "Seb", reads: "I spoke with
Seb this morning. We covered several topics but I asked specifically about 2021.
"He made clear his support for 2021 in Eugene but made equally clear he had reached out to
Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to
take any action at the April meeting (in Beijing) to choose a 2021 site'."
Yet it was at that April meeting of the IAAF's council that Diack announced the surprise
vote on giving the championships directly to Eugene.
Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to
re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".
Other emails seen by the BBC revealed that Lananna made at least one trip to Europe to
visit Diack a few weeks after this email was written.
And by 15 April 2015, the campaign had paid off.
Several IAAF council members have told the BBC that Diack made clear his support for
Eugene, and urged his fellow members to follow suit.
The secret vote was carried by 23-1, with one abstention.
I highly doubt it; if the investigation is taking place in America, that self-righteous
persecution thing tends to disappear in favour of ass-covering. They may have been a ball of
fire investigating FIFA, but FIFA is not headquartered in America.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo
posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials"
titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat
Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up
there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's
doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as
evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days
later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS
(Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are,
and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so
painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute
the words "Jews" for "Russians" and the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then
re-read the sentence.
See how ugly that sentence now looks?
So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same
sort of racism when it is directed against Russians?
"... "Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention -- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by 33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against Iran. ..."
The Russia-gate 'scandal' sideshow provided a very useful diversion while military
preparations were advanced:
"While still on the books, the War Powers Act has long ago been turned into a dead letter
by the quarter century of US wars of aggression that have followed the Stalinist
bureaucracy's dissolution of the Soviet Union, all waged without a declaration of war by
Congress.
"Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have willingly acquiesced in the de facto
concentration of dictatorial power in the hands of the 'commander in chief' in the
all-important matter of the waging of foreign wars.
"The latest letter from the Trump administration, however, represents another qualitative
step in this protracted degeneration of American democracy and the elimination of the last
pretenses of civilian control over the military. [ ]
"The Trump White House has removed caps imposed on troop levels under the Obama
administration, leaving it up to the military commanders to escalate US deployments at will.
Obama's caps themselves were routinely circumvented through so-called temporary deployments
that saw far more troops sent into US wars than were officially on the books.
"The secrecy surrounding troop deployments has been highlighted in recent months [ ] the
so-called slip of the tongue by the commander of US special operations forces in Iraq and
Syria who told a Pentagon press conference that 4,000 US troops were on the ground in Syria.
He quickly caught himself and repeated the official figure of 500. Subsequently, the Pentagon
allowed that the real number was over 2,000.
"Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention
-- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by
33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a
number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against
Iran.
"These deployments are kept secret or effectively concealed not out of any concern about
'tipping off the enemy,' which in virtually every case is well aware of the level of US
military aggression against their countries. Rather, it is aimed at keeping the information
from the American people, which has no interest in continuing the ongoing military
interventions in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa, much less launching new and
potentially world catastrophic wars against Iran, North Korea and even China and Russia.
"In terms of the waging of semi-secret wars abroad, as with attacks on democratic rights
and the social conditions of the working class at home, Trump represents not an aberration,
but rather the culmination of protracted processes that have unfolded under both Democratic
and Republican administrations, which have ceded ever greater power over US foreign policy to
US military commanders. This trend has only deepened under Trump, with an active duty general
serving as national security advisor, and two recently retired Marine generals filling the
posts of defense secretary and White House chief of staff.
"With US forces on the borders of North Korea, China, and Russia on a hair-trigger, the
continuous assertion of ever greater war-making powers to the military brass massively
increases the danger that a miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident could quickly lead
to full-scale nuclear war.
"Trump's further assault on the War Powers Act has elicited no protest from the Democrats
in Congress. They are not opposed to the government's domination by the military or the drive
to war. Their differences are merely of a tactical character, expressed in a campaign of
anti-Russia hysteria waged in collaboration with sections of the US military and intelligence
apparatus in preparation for a new and far more terrible conflagration."
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on
Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports
Robert Parry.
If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People --
across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to
resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?
A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement
that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States
presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.
According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S.
presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual
election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a
Times article in early October.
As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported
that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for
animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid
ads."
As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about
"adorable puppies," the absurdity
of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself
reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads"
– tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.
On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because
it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even
smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that
modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.
Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil
Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core
narrative of Russia-gate.
Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its
first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on
Internet regulation.
In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That
way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further
criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters
"deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies)
that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.
Leaving Out Context
The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in
the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that –
apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.
Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt
with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.
Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to
influence" the 2016 election appeared in an
article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a
powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents.
(That is not a misprint.)
According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200
times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British
parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must
have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the
European Union for their own reasons.
We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and
French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later
conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com's " German
Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]
The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"
These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence
that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the
accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
These "hand-picked" analysts produced the
evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to
WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.
When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed
the lack of proof,
writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most
eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to
'trust us.'"
But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the
Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.
The 17-Agencies Canard
Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream
media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies"
concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to
hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!
Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing
the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S.
mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics
seem more out of step and crazy.
So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in
congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian
hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream
media.
The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency
falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its
lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still
misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a
number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.
Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When
former NSA technical director William Binney conducted
experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not
have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive
-- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was
no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."
Even with the new disclosures
about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI
officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no
indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the
Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want
to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.
But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as
delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year
into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate
narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse,
that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors
in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election
and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging
when it comes to what we read and hear.
ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also
attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used
about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the
words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed
to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public –
and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.
It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual
facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us
about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk
about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes
to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that
our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while –
all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any
country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not
only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we
can't see it.
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely
a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every
way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster
citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of
the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of
it.
Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing
repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he
repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting
tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?
Sorry to ruin everyone's party.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story,
always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of
incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be
corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and
where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial
false stories are lavished:
– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter
(Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin
agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets,
echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment
fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]
"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and
consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility
for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind
P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.
"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely
fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources'
all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries
and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the
real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their
own conduct."
Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has
been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think
tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's
base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community,
and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political
party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party"
since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous
in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the
world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and
neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys
JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor,
consumers, t's own loyal public.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of
experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our
younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has
given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you
John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward.
Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for this post John.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be
proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump
victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and
Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after
the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their
argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a
purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation
where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were
"broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the
Pentagon. I like to dream big.
My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to
power now that net neutrality appears dead.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads
on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free
media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody
thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then
why not question this free media give away?
As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with
Israel?
Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss
my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex
to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done
everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all
on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep
her out of reach of the Oval Office.
I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get
the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without
him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought
the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.
Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would
be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who
and what is behind the curtain.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm
" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of
$44,000.xx .."
Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really ,
that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents !
:
This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look
into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media,
and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If
the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them
now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in
researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions
– that's how awakening begins .
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your
uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of "
waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.
Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch
hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one
criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if
any government on Earth does represent "the people".
Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm
In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly
regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.
In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for
International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a
beacon of reason.
In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is
either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA
and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.
Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against
Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as
foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to
Russian media organisations working in the USA.
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system
is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal
state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions)
will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine
got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative
under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain
antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts
of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for
the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical
for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western
leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed
businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the
U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down.
This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic
standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary
statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all
officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their
dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many,
people still remember.
Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international
crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles
from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods
..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the
breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political
right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions
and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in
the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the
rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.
I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible
and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned
alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such
a 'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the
filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM
as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos.
Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being
and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous
critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT
is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those
who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.
RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake
news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).
Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless
and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn
out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of
$145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us
with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish
government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
Today we know that the
stupid
denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was
part of the plan
for the
coup in Ukraine. On of distinct features of psychopaths is a lack of 'strategic empathy'. One one
commenter noted: "for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with Putin, or only in so far
as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i "
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations. ..."
"... Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated. ..."
"... for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i ..."
"... it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet ..."
"... 2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris. ..."
"... I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped. ..."
"... It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism. ..."
"... blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief. ..."
"... Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. ..."
"... The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. ..."
"... In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. ..."
"... It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya .... ..."
"... Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history. ..."
"... It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average. ..."
"... Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons. ..."
"... It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. ..."
"... It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell. ..."
"... "It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to." ..."
That illegal regime change was itself part of a bigger plan to restart a cold war, which will
allow the U.S. to assert even more control over Europe, and eventually for regime change in Russia.
I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves. As my
Do Svidanya Sochi
piece said:
The Russians will be very proud of these games. They will be grateful to their government and
president for having delivered them. The internal and external message is understood: Russia has
again found itself and it is stronger than ever.
The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of
serious miscalculations.
My hope for 2015 is that any miscalculations will be avoided and that peace will mostly prevail.
My very best wishes to all of you for a happy year 2015.
On what you say: 'Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western"
propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.' This strikes me as placing too
much emphasis on design as opposed to miscalculation, or perhaps, as this blogpost suggests, a
lack of 'strategic empathy':
http://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/the-need-for-strategic-empathy/
GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | 6
Best to you and thanks for running a great blog!
Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and
lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if
we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet
would be if the two countries cooperated.
Combining Russian knowledge and creativity with American ingenuity and entrepreneurship...
- yes, one can only dream. All we have now is an unstoppable desire to dominate and a complete
failure of imagination. But nothing lasts forever... so let's hope for a brighter and more honest
future.
Oliver Stone on the narrative
USA In
Ukraine.
Always love those comments, 2,473 and counting. Links to Pepe Escobar's analysis "The
new European 'arc of instability,'" which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US
cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entity.
james | Dec 31, 2014 6:56:35 PM | 17
hey sloth.. for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in
so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i
live in canada and when i see the country being raped by corps that have only as much concern
for the environment as our politicians will demand, i get discouraged. these same politicians
don't represent me or ordinary canucks, but these same corps wanting to take the resources while
giving few jobs in return..
it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for
global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet..
they will switch to another whore when the us$ is no more.. this isn't about hero worship..
it's about recognizing how we in the west are being conned and lied to by financial interests
who own the press and have nothing to do with my best interests.. no hero worship on my part.
you saying folks put putin on a pedestal is your own wishful thinking bullshit.
okie farmer | Dec 31, 2014 7:05:26 PM | 18
BBC World Service this morning said Moscow's riot police had dispersed Navalny's demonstrators
keeping them off the sidewalks etc. I watched a live feed of the demonstration for hours, I counted
about 80 demonstrators and about 20 police. Actually the demonstration was in a small plaza and
no one was "dispersed". The police, however, were on the sidewalks watching the demonstrators
in the plaza, which BBC turned on it's head for propaganda purposes.
Copeland | Dec 31, 2014 8:43:40 PM | 23
2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly
as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat
oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious
that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than
they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris.
I go into the New Year cheering b, our host at this bar. And I feel so much respect for those
among us who resist, who constantly refuse to capitulate to the Forces of Darkness; and so I believe
the spirit that sustains us will be here in abundance, in 2015: solidarity, imagination and ingenuity,
indignation and revolt, love and catharsis, all strength of character to encourage, and yes, an
ample measure of good luck.
May we live to see a better year.
Demian | Dec 31, 2014 10:18:13 PM | 26
To address the matter of the Sochi Olympics. I had wondered about what the performances were
like, and since I don't have a TV, b's linking to a video of the highlights was the first opportunity
I had to see what the Russians had done in an apparent effort to represent Russia as a solid part
of Europe. (This is what reports said was the purpose of putting so much effort into these Olympics.
Warning: I am not into ballet.)
I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world
is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics,
because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights
of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped.
This is some of the best film making I have ever seen. Every single scene in the Rammstein video
is mind blowing. Particularly notable are the sequence with the girls swinging their arms in tandem
and the women and men diving into water. As far as I know, there is nothing like that elsewhere
in cinema. It is a war crime that with cinematography and editing like that, Riefenstahl wasn't
permitted by the occupying powers to continue making films.
It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and
ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag
taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not
taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat
of fascism.
Compared to Olympia, what the Russians did with the Sochi Olympics is nothing but Kitsch.
And in addition to Saker himself and Paul Craig, there is the WHITE PAPER posted by the former
and alluded to by the latter :
The DOUBLE HELIX:
CHINA-RUSSIA. Seems very solid.
And towards the end, the Larchmonter makes some interesting observations on North Korea, and
so, obliquely on the 'Lost U.S. Credibility On Cyber Claims'.
I don't see b or this blog in that way, but blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist
and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling
class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief.
But Putin's actions show he _is_ a real Russian nationalist, and he has a real-world,
non-imperialist understanding of what Russian nationalism covers and doesn't cover.
Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which
blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. I just wish he (and China) had
woken up sooner, in 2013, and maybe the rape of Libya could've been prevented. So, Putin is a
major actor in world affairs, he's on the anti-imperial side of history, and as far as I can tell
he is on the side of all who fight the Western financial borg's world dominance and austerity
crusade.
However, the next twenty years is about China and what it decides to do and who it decides
ultimately to ally with. Maybe Putin fever can be cured a bit if we imagine him checking his every
major move with Xi Jinping. Quiet Xi is the real man going forward. Not as much fun at parties,
not as animated facial expressions, not as direct or as artful in expression as Putin, but he
(and what he represents) is the real power.
And, if Xi and Putin remain allied, this may really turn out to be the Chinese century. Hope
no feelings are hurt but I don't guess it will be known as the Eurasian Century.
That said, the only thing I remember from Sochi are Yu Na and the other beautiful Asian figure
skaters.
Here is an event presented in the New York Times: a "sweeping roundup of dissidents":
[A performance artist] was detained at her mother's home hours before the event and released
Wednesday afternoon, along with several others.
That's a "sweeping roundup of dissidents" - briefly questioning someone at their mother's home.
Of course the job of the New York Times is to blow things out of proportion. How else to can
the NYTimes present the enforcement of mundane laws in Cuba (laws which all countries have) to
the American people, who see their police forces daily murder people? The NYTimes has a job to
do (as does any propagandist): they have to convince the home population that they are living
under the best conditions possible while giving the impression that life anywhere else is a dystopian
nightmare. Truth be told - for a significant sector of the US population, as events in NYC and
Ferguson have recently shown - the reality is exactly reversed!
Consider too, what she was briefly detained for - seeking to assemble without a permit - and
ask yourself: what happens in the United States when people attempt to assemble without a permit
in some of the most heavily trafficked areas of the US largest cities? What would occur, should,
say, the New Black Panther Party attempted to set up a rally in Times Square unannounced? What
happened, indeed, when the Obama Administration had enough of the Occupy Movement? The tear gassing,
the pepper spraying, the ejection of people from a park where they had a right to be.
Face the facts. The US allows no public displays of dissent without the approval of the
authorities. Yet what is presented in the US as "public order" is, in Cuba, portrayed as some
sort of totalitarian repression. This is sheer hypocrisy from those who have an interest in smashing
an independent government in Cuba, and convincing the American people that we live in a "free"
society.
It sort of says it all that she chose the location of the memorial to the sunken Maine Battleship
- the incident that brought the most recent wave of US Imperialism to Cuba.
"She then announced a news conference and public gathering on the Malecón, ...at the memorial
to the Maine, the American battleship that sank in Havana Harbor in 1898."
guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:53:39 PM | 34
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother's eye.Matthew 7:5
There is no statement more appropriate to present to those sitting in the US, smug in their
conviction that their country is the righteous one, and that Russia and "evil" Putin are the aggressors.
The fact is, there is little in Russian behavior - at home or internationally - which one can
point at negatively in which the United States doesn't out do them by a long stretch. From the
military sphere, to the way it treats its smaller partners and neighbors, to the way it provides
for its people at home.
May 2015 be the year hypocrisy faces consequences.
Yes that's great stuff. Cant say I enjoy reading the comments but over and over it becomes
clear that the pro-US, pro NATO, pro IMF rah rah fools have NOTHING.
The most they can manage is "Putin lover" or "why don't you marry Putin if you love him so
much"...etc., some turn it around and say instead "why don't you move to Russia if you hate America
so much"..LOL.
The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over.
Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the
same paragraph, and literally nothing else. When they do attempt to argue the extant facts
they merely invert them and mimic the arguments of we anti imperialists, standing reality on its
head. These are classic, textbook reactionary rhetorical "styles"...They cant argue facts because
any facts they are willing to admit to almost never support their opinions. In the end they
often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good
as a win. The best way to deal with these trolls and shills ? Don't engage them directly
at all, but address their nonsense obliquely and restate the true facts clearly and repeatedly
.
fairleft@29- Watching the 2008 Chinese Olympics opening ceremony I remember being bowled over
by the precision and artistry. I remember thinking we in the US are truly screwed. With Sochi
not so much -- kitschy as you would expect. However I think Russia's actions in 2014 were duly
impressive. Your post made me think of Putin re Knut Rockne's quote: "One man practicing sportsmanship
is far better than a hundred teaching it."
It 's funny I know next to nothing of Xi Jingping- I'll have to remedy that this year.
But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are
revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials,
boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia,
and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local
governments.
In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund
to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these
volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas,
where a major emergency is emerging.
On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern
port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.
Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion
alone.
A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is
posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer
groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question
of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense
Council.
Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead
of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning
those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored
personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even
named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.
Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast.
Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian
region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas
and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.
What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant
or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of
his key political allies.
Now, we all know that Yatseniuk is Victoria Nuland's guy - so the US support war lordism in
Ukraine?
It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya ....
haha, here is how the author is described in that op-ed:
Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine
in Europe" initiative.
The author complains about "warlordism" in Ukraine, but it is the "Ukraine in Europe" "initiative"
which has produced the warlordism. You really have to wonder how these people can live with themselves
and keep on producing such pieces which studiously ignore the obvious.
I couldn't agree with you more, GoraDiva. But you have to understand how badly educated we
Americans are. Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries,
or their history.
And, literally, no Americans know how well-educated Russians are who went to university under
the USSR system; they have no idea of the rigor. None. No one. They think Putin is some KGB agent
who studied at the equivalent of a Police Academy, and managed to get lucky and win a few elections,
and view him as someone similar to a Brooklyn mafia don. They don't know about Putin's Master's
and PhD degrees, or what they were in.
They don't know that Lavrov can run rings around Kerry intellectually, and speaks, what? Five
or six languages fluently?
They regurgitate what the former house-painter Sean Hannity thinks of Putin, who regurgitates
what he heard growing up on the streets of New York. These guys don't read.
I really don't understand why this blog became a living monument to Putin. At times, I think
that b's hatred of the US has something to do with the gutless murder of civilian Hamburgers
by allied bombers. On the other hand, the Red Army raped and murdered countless thousands of
German civilians. And rather unlike the Russians, the American occupation was colossally more
favorable to Hamburgers that was to anyone living in the Soviet bloc.
But the biggy is what Eisenhower did to German POWs just after the war. He killed a million,
dumped lye on them, and ground them into the dirt. Story in Saturday Night, 1989. Make sure you
scroll down to see the photos. Eisenhower made them live in hole in the ground. Eisenhower's Death Camps-The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two by historian James Basque http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html
It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist,
grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush
Jr., can graduate with a B- average.
And then the magic of connections and just doing what you're told can push an unqualified,
uninterested dolt all the way to the top or near top.
Looking at Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, the only one who seemed smart and who knew and cared about
what he was doing was the sociopath Cheney.
Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a
joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons.
A Presidential candidate who is engaged, very smart and well-informed sticks out like a sore
thumb and has a hard time earning the trust of the powers that be. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is
a good example. (She's done a lot (of horrible things) since then to earn the PTB's trust, though.)
For the reason that being smart, engaged and well-read means you are potentially independent-minded
in a sudden crisis. What if, for example, a sudden huge economic/mortgage crisis occurs and the
extremely obvious thing to do is help homeowners directly, let the foolish banks who bankrupted
themselves suffer the consequences, and pour money into public works and workers' pockets? In
such a crisis, the PTB wants a bored, conformist, "don't give a shit" President who'll do exactly
what Goldman Sachs tells him to do, not a smart, engaged, well-informed and potentially independent
thinker/decider.
So the U.S. will continue to have an intellectual deficit at the top, and Russia will continue
to win diplomatic and other battles with the U.S. even in situations where it's significantly
'outweighed'. Brains are too untrustworthy, they make the Wall Street boys nervous.
You have the same problem as b. The world is shades of grey not good and bad.
The "novorussian" side is fighting in the areas where Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs have interests
who lost when Yanukovich was ousted. By withdrawing his own Russian nationalist fanatics Putin
left the field to them. The non-destruction and shake down of Mariupol is a good case study of
what is going on. Kolomoisky (Dnepopetrovsk) is in a take over fight with Akhmetov (Donbass).
There seems to be an agreement between Putin, Poroshenko and the EU (devolution and Donbass
remaining part of Ukraine), just Poroshenko has not got the power (the security/military apparatus
is in the hands of the Yatseniuk/Avakov/Kolomoisky faction backed by Victoria Nuland) to deal.
Poroshenko's statements are devoid of any logic as he tries to cover the divide in his political
coalition. At the same time obviously, he is in it for himself. On the other hand there is the
issue of the funding of the Novorussian side. A lot of that will be a shake down of the oligarchs,
too, and the genie probably has come out of the bottle there, too.
There is something intriguing about the Dniepopetrovsk private civilian and military airport
run by Kolomoisky's airline. And there is a gap in the conspiracy theories of the usual Russian
linked, Western left media outlets.
Indian media is full of it, just google it.
According to reports in the media, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to take off at
1 PM from Frankfurt on his way back to India from Brazil where he had gone for a meeting of
the leaders of the BRICS countries. His flight eventually took off at 1:22 PM. Had Modi's flight
taken off at 1 PM as the earlier reports had indicated, it would have been in the vicinity
of the shooting within six minutes of the Malaysian Airlines flight being shot down. ... What
makes the claim that MH 17 was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane a highly questionable
one is that the plane was just 20 miles from the Russian border and the Ukrainian government
would not dare provoke Russia by sending military planes to cross over into Russian airspace.
It is unlikely that the anyone could have mistaken a plane headed for Russia as an Ukrainian
military aircraft. ... Modi's election in May as the Indian Prime Minister caused a huge geopolitical
earthquake, and any harm to him will have great ramifications around the world.
Actually, Modi was on his return from Brazil where BRICS had just voted on the founding of
a BRICS development bank.
Now, this is a very good conspiracy theory with all the necessary ingredients. How come this
has been restricted to India?
This US imperialist propaganda piece must be written by one of the staff comedians! Bandera
is Che Guevara! Chocolate king Poroshenko fought on the barricades!
Notice the backhanded support to these n@zis? Our propaganda machine wants you to think
that only "Moscow" says Bandera fought on the side of Hitler and the N@zis. Notice how the
article tries to justify Bandera's fighting with the n@zis by blaming the 1930s famine -- but
not mentioning the famine affected the whole USSR and was made worse by US economic embargo
(just like today!)
These are the n@zis on whom our US government of hypocrites spent 5 billion of our tax dollars
to bring to power and overthrow an elected government. These n@zis have attacked all media
and parties in Ukraine that oppose the US puppet junta.
The people of the east are overwhelmingly Russian speaking working class people, miners
and factory workers, who refused their appointed oligarch governors and declared their independence
of the junta.
Our US government wants to turn Ukraine into a low wage colony and establish first-strike
nuclear missile bases in Ukraine directed against Russia. The restoration of capitalism in
Ukraine has brought disaster.
No surprise that some US politicians mingle with N@zis in Louisiana!
the nonpoodle parts of europe will have to be aware of sedition from its own peoples as with
the various Arab springs and Ukraine's Maidan, where locals serve to agitate for a foreign power
while talking about 'freedom and democracy'
Sergey Lavrov said on 15 Dec 2014: "We have overestimated the independence of the European
Union [from the US]." http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/767282
. Lavrov made that comment in contemplation of the trade sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia
last summer & autumn including particularly the manner in which the sanctions were discussed and
not debated by EU political society.
It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of
the "non-poodle" components of Europe. 'b' makes a bold declaration in his above post that
"I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves."
It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in
other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good
and for ill, for better and for worse.
I repeat, the "non-poodle parts of Europe" have no teeth in Europe. You've seen that consistently
in recent years, and you've no intelligent basis for supposing you're not going to be seeing it
in 2015.
I'm sorry that I did not make my intent clear. I've been posting about the dangers posed by
the militias and the rivalry btw. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky for a bit (good to see the WaPo has
caught up, as you advise in 39 -- NYT is my MSM paper-of-record of choice, so I don't see the
Post, thanks). I offered it as evidence of growing discord amongst the junta, not praise for Poroshenko's
virtue. I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert
themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell.
I see the junta as shades of black -- midnight, charcoal, jet, ebony, etc. The Opposition Bloc
is grey.
More grist for the mill -- nice pc. from Fort Russ, Is Poroshenko Preparing
for Peace or War?. The whole pc. is worth reading, thorough consideration of Poroshenko's
position, but here's the bottom line.
"It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work
on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides
will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums
even if he wishes to."
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
i think the Saker forgot that Russia is also a neoliberal country. The last time I checked Russia keeps its foreign
reserves in US.
Notable quotes:
"... I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. ..."
"... First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria. ..."
"... Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight " led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war (with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground). ..."
"... Finally, when the US realized that putting Daesh in power in Damascus was not going to happen, they first tried to break up Syria (Plan B) and then tried to create a Kurdish statelet in Iraq and Syria (Plan C). All these plans failed, Assad is in Russia giving hugs to Putin , while Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force Commander General Soleimani is taking a stroll through the last Syrian city to be liberated from Daesh . ..."
"... This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here. ..."
"... The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified ( at least officially ) by a non-existing threat. ..."
"... That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated "coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies. Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю молодца и в татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing courage in their enemies. ..."
"... US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries) ..."
"... It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage: whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the "concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that). ..."
"... The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically, socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it. ..."
"... Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia! So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last red line and not gonna retreat. ..."
"... The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much that there will be a happy outcome. ..."
"... Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after time? ..."
"... I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not from us, we already did. ..."
"... At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely subverting US foreign policy. ..."
"... First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some "justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably. ..."
"... On the Russian side, Putin's generally anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular. ..."
"... The US never wages a real war on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it, "coffins have no pockets". ..."
"... But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea. ..."
"... The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly better than any unipolar world can possibly be. ..."
"... Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone. ..."
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... "The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin. ..."
I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that
they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for
the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms
the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for
Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either
Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse.
In my very first column for the Unz Review entitled " A Tale of Two World Orders " I
described the kind of multipolar international system regulated by the rule of law that Russia,
China and their allies and friends worldwide (whether overt or covert) are trying to build and
how dramatically different it was from the single World Hegemony that the AngloZionists have
attempted to establish (and almost successfully imposed upon our suffering planet!). In a way,
the
US imperial leaders are right , Russia does represent an existential threat, not for the
United States as a country or for its people, but for the AngloZionist Empire, just as the
latter represents an existential threat to Russia. Furthermore, Russia represents a fundamental
civilizational challenge to what is normally called the "West" as she openly rejects its
post-Christian (and, I would add, also viscerally anti-Islamic) values. This is why both sides
are making an immense effort at prevailing in this struggle.
Last week the anti-imperial camp scored a major victory with the meeting between Presidents
Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan in Sochi: they declared themselves the guarantors of a peace plan
which will end the war against the Syrian people (the so-called "civil war", which this never
was) and they did so without inviting the US to participate in the negotiations. Even worse,
their final
statement did not even mention the US, not once. The "indispensable nation" was seen as so
irrelevant to even be mentioned.
To fully measure how offensive all this is we need to stress a number of points:
First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with
immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political
corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria.
Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve
anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight "
led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia
never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war
(with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground).
Next, the Empire decreed that Russia was "isolated" and her economy "
in tatters " – all of which the
Ziomedia parroted with total fidelity . Iran was, of course, part of the famous "
Axis of Evil ," while
Hezbollah was the " A-Team of terrorism ". As
for Erdogan, the AngloZionists tried to overthrow and kill him. And now it is Russia, Iran,
Hezbollah and Turkey who defeated the terrorists and will call the shots in Syria.
Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today?
Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!
This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without
mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out
which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO
commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian
military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly
whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into
full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through
the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here.
Does that make sense to you?
The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social
media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how
almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their
heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally
terrified ( at least
officially ) by a non-existing threat.
You know what else they are seeing?
That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated
"coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies.
Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to
look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a
scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million
people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really
hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there
is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The
Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering
on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were
skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in
the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю
молодца и в
татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing
courage in their enemies.
... ... ...
Russia: the Russian strategy towards the Empire is simple:
Try to avoid as much as
possible and for as long as possible any direct military confrontation with the US because
Russia is still the weaker side (mostly in quantitative terms). That, and actively preparing
for war under the ancient si vis pacem para bellum strategy. Try to cope as best can be
with all the "petty harassment": the US still has infinitely more "soft power" than Russia and
Russia simply does not have the means to strike back in kind. So she does the minimum to try to
deter or weaken the effects of that kind of "petty harassment" but, in truth, there is not much
she can do about it besides accepting it as a fact of life. Rather than trying to disengage
from the AngloZionist controlled Empire (economically, financially, politically), Russia will
very deliberately contribute to the gradual emergence of an alternative realm. A good example
of that is the Chinese-promoted New Silk Road which is being built without any meaningful role
for the Empire.
US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a
purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against
Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing
any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries)
Both sides are using delaying tactics, but for diametrically opposite reasons: Russia,
because time is on her side and the US, because they have run out of options.
It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage:
whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples
include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another
major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of
antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the
"concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of
international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most
world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that).
The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically,
socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous
United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh
sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when
financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of
pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is
being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it.
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they rule.
In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn. In Russia it
has never been stronger. This translates into a major fragility of the US and, therefore, the
Empire (the US are by far the biggest host of the AngloZionist imperial parasite) and a major
source of staying power for Russia.
All of the above applies only to political regimes, of course. The people of Russia and of
the US have exactly the same interests: bringing down the Empire with the least amount of
violence and suffering as possible. Like all Empires, the US Empire mostly abused others in its
formative and peak years, but as any decaying Empire it is now mostly abusing its own people.
It is therefore vital to always repeat that an "Empire-free US" would have no reason to see an
enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US could be ideal partners, but the
"imperial parasites" will not allow that to happen. Thus we are all stuck in an absurd and
dangerous situation which could result in a war which would completely destroy most of our
planet.
For whatever it's worth, and in spite of the constant hysterical Russophobia in the US
Ziomedia, I detect absolutely no sign whatsoever that this campaign is having any success with
the people in the US. At most, some of them naively buy into the "the Russians tried to
interfere in our elections" fairy tale, but even in this case this belief is mitigated by "no
big deal, we also do that in other countries". I have yet to meet a American who would
seriously believe that Russia is any kind of danger. I don't even detect superficial reactions
of hostility when, for example, I speak Russian with my family in a public place. Typically, we
are asked what language we are speaking and when we reply "Russian" the reaction normally is
"cool!". Quite often I even hear "what do you think of Putin? I really like him". This is in
severe contrast with the federal government whom the vast majority of Americans seem to hate
with a passion.
To summarize it all, I would say that at this point in time of the US-Russian war, Russia is
wining, the Empire is losing and the US is suffering. As for the EU it is "enjoying" a much
deserved irrelevance while being mostly busy absorbing wave after wave of society-destroying
refugees proving, yet again, the truth of the saying that if your head is in the sand, your ass
is in the air.
This war is far from over, I don't even think that we have reach its peak yet and things are
going to get worse before they get better again. But all in all, I am very optimistic that the
Axis of Kindness will bite the dust in a relatively not too distant future.
Reading texts from Saker is a sip of fresh water in a rotten pool. His words "things are
going to get worse before they get better again" could come true, but also could never happen
cause current Cold War very likely may be converted to very hot one. And they will not get
better. The common West doing everything for it.
Saker said "Russians laughing" – yes, we do sometimes, but when we hear last news from
"soft harassment" like attacks on our sportsmen, diplomats or reporters we are clenching our
fists. We do not feel bad on western people, but this is not the case when to talk about the
country as whole, counry which being determinated by its tops. There is a limit to any
patience.
Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in
the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at
last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and
Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia!
So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I
believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last
red line and not gonna retreat.
The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are
evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent
people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now
being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the
western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much
that there will be a happy outcome.
Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough
wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can
only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he
declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live
comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then
we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate
intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear.
The biggest threat to our continued existence is not the strength of the Russian
federation but its weakness. Outspent and outnumbered hugely by the EU alone (whatever the
paid liars in Washington say) their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is
their nuclear arsenal, we can only hope they never need to use it.
Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today?
Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!
Saker could have added to the list of self-inflicted defeats for the US regime and foreign
policy elites their ongoing humiliation over North Korea, where they have endlessly tried to
insist that the US has some kind of special right for its enemies not to be allowed even to
possess weapons that could potentially attack them, and postured and menaced in response to
the NK government's defiance, but have so far been forced to accept that they can do nothing
about it, as Pat Buchanan discusses
today . And as Pat points out, this is a situation entirely of the US regime's making
– by operating a sustained policy of military aggressions, and especially of attacking
those that foolishly rely upon submission to their demands (Gaddafi) and undermining any
agreements they make (Iran), they created the situation in which going all out for a nuclear
deterrent became the most rational course available for NK.
The US might yet choose to wage another war of aggression in order to avoid yet another
self-inflicted humiliation, or an unintended war might start as a result of the US regime's
irresponsible military buildup and provocations, but if either happens, the costs will be
colossal and any gains trivial, "win" or lose.
But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the
folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified (at least officially) by a
non-existing threat.
That's not the only gross absurdity in US sphere society that Russians are laughing at,
apparently:
Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And
who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after
time?
Over the past thirty years, at least, the US regime has ensured that the truth is
anti-American.
"US would have no reason to see an enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US
could be ideal partners"
This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down. But instead, I saw that my belief that the US government was a "white knight in shining
armor" acting for "truth, justice, and the american way" and to "make the world safe for
democracy" was only a dream, a foolish fantasy. I had been deceived. I had wanted to be an Army general and was a Distinguished Graduate of the USMA. Now I
resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my arm to stop
the tanks.
I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it must
come from below. An "American Spring" is essential. I hope my complacent countrymen will see
this before it is too late.
Now I resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my
arm to stop the tanks.
I took off the uniform of Soviet Army officer more than 30 years ago. Was an officer in
anti aircraft division.
I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it
must come from below.
I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't
retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And
I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a
majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not
from us, we already did.
This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down.
At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian
side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a
degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of
re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely
subverting US foreign policy.
their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is their nuclear arsenal
Sir, don't repeat discredited propaganda memes. If you don't trust me, which is fine, read
opinion on the man who has decades of working and serving with this very NATO, not to mention
his deep knowledge on military-diplomatic terms of Russia.
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they
rule. In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn.
That really is the nub of the matter there. The elites are fumbling about, trying to save
themselves in the USA and their unearned perquisites. As the Saker says, the imperial
parasite is sucking dry what should be a wealthy and peaceful land.
Too much depends on China, and I don't trust them.
The godless money grubbers may chose to ally with the (((Anglos))) and stab Russia in the
back just like Russia allied with the (((Brits))) to stab Germany in the back.
The world pivots on the Yellow Peril.
except for the reference to Conchita Wurst, of which I'm unfamiliar. I was curious
enough to google it, and now I can't unsee that. Dear God, I need a brainwash.
LOL, tell me about that – same here. I heard of IT (This, that, creature etc.) but at
some point of time I took a look. Boy, was I sorry:))
America's Founding was also marked by this great contradiction. It was, in one sense, a
universal republic committed to principles that rose above tribe or nation.
..
Given that the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed for Whites only, the concept of a
universal republic was, obviously, not entirely universal.
As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as
slaves and then huge numbers of 'ethnic' European immigrants -- especially the feisty and
pushy Jews -- led to increasing pressure to transform America into a 'proposition'
There was already a steady supply of White slaves (indentured servants) coming from the
UK. The importation of Africans was mainly in Jewish hands, as the (((reviled))) Tony Martin
pointed out. This ramped up considerably after Anthony Johnson, a Black landowner who was a
former indentured servant, sued and won the right to keep slaves for life. Ironically, his
two white slaves were also included in the judgement. So much for White privilege.
At one point the US was so confident that they managed to "fix" the middle east, that they
were talking about "pivot" to Asia, which was nothing more than a veiled threat to China that
they are next on the list to be "fixed". So the pivot to Asia didn't really happen, as it
turns out the middle east wasn't really "fixed", not the way the wanted it anyway. Then the
fiasco in Ukraine happened where they had to turn their attention to Russia.
May I be so bold as to suggest few names for the new US policies towards Russia after 2014
– using "pivot to Asia" as a guidance? How about:
1. Somersault to Russia? Or,
2. Cartwheel to Russia? Or maybe,
3. Backflip to Russia?
Note that all 3 suggested choices try to point out to the acrobatic skills needed in order
for the missions named after them to succeed.
First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be
on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that
now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of
taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some
"justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably.
On the Russian side, Putin's generally
anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his
grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also
enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular.
The US never wages a real war
on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of
the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither
Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand
deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it,
"coffins have no pockets".
But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire
a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they
quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than
shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be
relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination
would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their
incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the
world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea.
The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and
overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and
behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless
Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly
better than any unipolar world can possibly be.
Instead of AngloZionist Empire, I like just to call it the "Confederacy."
1. The Southern Generals strut around the globe like they own the place.
2. We're a resource-based economy with a free trade mantra.
3. Slave labor camps litter the Empire (though only in prisons in Confederate Homeland).
4. Hyper Police State.
5. Everyone defines themselves by their skin color.
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing,
Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and
alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the
universe' are not that smart to start with.
Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the
local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or
Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of
all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human
rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and
suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+
years.
I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It
goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a
clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and
unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using
methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it
around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often
the only thing that works is to use more stupidity
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel
and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a
struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the
proponents of the multipolar world want.
The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The
Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary
structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent
that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that
Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few
generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as
historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear
now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by
dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe
to destroy.
EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal
alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the
countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with
suspicion.
"Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the
rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and
governance."
Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do,
Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires
that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a
half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.
Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the
near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope
for.
"The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who
unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin.
"Russians shouldn't have raped all those German women"
Yeah, that's the problem – WWII was all about Russians raping. Not about Germans
attacking east and murdering tens of millions. How many Russian women do you think Germans
'raped'? Or maybe they just killed them, 'ubermensch', right. It doesn't seem to bother you
and that is sick.
Or this vignette:
The regime in Moscow has one and only one goal: own hold on power"
While, of course the 'regimes' in Washington or Berlin spend all their time worrying about
the well-being of their citizens. You really cannot be that dumb, or can you?
I made mistake responding to you, you are hopeless.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some
ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has
'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and
blackmail.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't
care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary
– US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders
offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is
obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is
really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they
scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming,
they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see
squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work
with.
You only mentioned one. You always only mention one, the same one.
To be fair, Germans started the war and killed a lot more people in the east. They
deserved what they got.
how about ALL those regimes (Washington, Berlin, Moscow) first and foremost care about
own survival and own success
You say that now because you got caught – again – with a one-sided biased
view. If people have to remind you that rules should be applied equally, you are either too
far gone or have issues with basic logic. Try to be objective to start with, not after you
produce a biased rant and people point it out to you.
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
"... So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow. ..."
"... are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians. ..."
The truth is often ignored, at first, and when that becomes impossible, truth-tellers are often punished. As two incidents starkly
reveal, this is certainly the case when it comes to the civil war in Ukraine and Washington's unfolding cold war with Russia.
The first illustration of our truth-telling principle occurred after the "Maidan revolution" had already captured the imagination
of the Western media, which was busy promulgating the official view as given expression by US government officials. According to
this narrative, the "protesters" were heroes, the government of "Russian-backed' Viktor Yanukovich was a coven of devils, and the
catalyzing incident that led to Yanukovich's ouster, the
shooting of protesters in the
Maidan, was the work of the Berkut, the Ukrainian government's militarized police.
There's just one problem with this story: it isn't true. A
leaked phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas
Paet and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, revealed that the protesters were shot by their
own leaders – the radical nationalists who had military control of the Maiden.
... ... ...
Ashton's main concern seemed to be that this would get out and discredit the new government "from the very beginning."
Oh, but not to worry: it didn't get out, at least not in the United States. There were oblique mentions of the recording in the
mainstream media, but only weeks afterward and then without any specifics: two months after the fact, the Los Angeles Timesreferred to it in
the vaguest terms, only to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." The New York Times didn't cover it: neither did the War
Street Journal, Time magazine, or any of the other usual suspects. The Daily Beast, typically, served as a mouthpiece
for the official Washington-Kiev account,
citing Dr. Bogomolets as claiming her conversation with Paet was a "misunderstanding." Yet Paet didn't cite her as his sole source:
he said "all the evidence." No doubt the Estonians have their own sources in the country, and it's improbable the Foreign
Minister would have made such an assertion based on a single person's testimony.
In any case, the story was pretty much buried here in the US, with the exception of
this space and a few other
alternative news sources.
But in Europe, it was a different story: the German public television station ARD carried
a report which threw the identity of the Maidan shooters
into serious question. And more recently the BBC produced a documentary, "The
Untold Story of the Maidan Massacre," in which eyewitnesses assert that the Berkut were fired on from positions controlled by
the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, which, along with the neo-Nazi "Right Sector" organization, ran Maidan security.
Still, the story was ignored in the US, but that may not be possible much longer, and the reason springs from an unlikely source:
the current Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko.
Last week Ukrainian police
raided the homes
of Svoboda Party leadersOleksandr Sych, who served
as Deputy Prime Minister in the post-Maidan government, and
Ole Pankevich,
whose 2013 appearance at a neo-Nazi memorial event provoked the ire of the World Jewish Congress. The Ukrainian prosecutor's office
confirmed that the raid was conducted as part of an investigation into the Maidan shootings:
"The court warrant for the raid on the apartment of Pankevich, a former MP and the ex-head of Lviv regional council, explicitly
referred to a BBC documentary on the subject, according to a copy of the warrant In the documentary, journalist Gabriel Gatehouse
spoke to an opposition nationalist rifleman who had acknowledged having fired on riot police in the morning of February 20."
"[A]lso refers to video footage that showed a rifleman firing out of the Hotel Ukraina, situated on Maidan. The room from
which he fired was occupied at the time by Pankevich, according to the court warrant.
"Police also raided the apartment of Sich, vice-prime minister in the immediate post-Maidan government in 2014, also in
connection with shots fired from the same hotel, where he was also staying on February 20.
"An assistant to Ukraine's prosecutor general, Vladislav Kutsenko, confirmed to the Ukrainian TV channel 112 that searches
of the Svoboda leaders' apartments were linked to an investigation of the February 20 events."
So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right
Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow.
Why this stunning turnaround?
Both Svoboda and Right Sector have declared war on the Poroshenko regime and are calling for a "national
revolution" – one that would install them in power. The ultra-nationalists are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by
the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians.
The far right is accusing Poroshenko of "betraying the revolution." They scoff at the ceasefire as a "sellout" because they want
the civil war to continue: and as Poroshenko makes draconian cuts in the government budget in order to mollify Ukraine's creditors,
and to ensure the flow of Western funding, the rightists are gaining ground politically. And they are getting increasingly violent,
staging a riot in front of the parliament building in
which three officers were
killed by
a grenade hurled at policemen: 130 cops were injured. The rightists were protesting the decision by the parliament to grant
the eastern rebels some small degree of autonomy. This incident followed a
series of
shoot-outs with the armed rightist gang known as Right
Sector, which played a key role
in the Maidan protest movement.
That the Poroshenko government, which had previously stonewalled any serious effort to investigate the shooting deaths that sent
Yanukovich packing, is playing this card now is an indication of the regime's desperation in the face of a challenge from the ultra-right.
For to upend the official narrative – one that is fully supported by their Western sponsors, and their amen corner in the media –
is to subvert the very foundations of the post-Maidan order. If the truth comes out, the ultra-nationalists may be finished – but
so may the government that exposes their murderous role.
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naïve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were
public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising.
Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
This year old article written at the beginning of anti-Russian witch hunt makes it easier to understand the tribe of "national security
parasites" to which Ferguson firmly belongs. Like many other members of the national security parasites tribe, he made a brilliant career
pandering to right-wing think tanks.
The very simple message of this tribe is "Carnage should be destroyed" and argumentation is selectively produced to support this
very idea. This is a dangerous level of political paranoia, or imperial sense of inferiority, if you wish. He is so incoherent and selective
in his rendering of Russian history that he looks like a charlatan, not historian.
Note that the term "neoliberalism" and "US neoliberal empire" are not even mentioned by this "historian". The tribe prohibits using
those terms.
Also not mentioned was an attempt by Clinton administration to subjugate Russia and convert it into vassal state which was instrumental
in bringing Putin to power.
As for Ukraine he conveniently forgot the role of Victoria Nuland in Maydan events (aka Nulandgate). The idea to break China-Russia
cooperation by dangling different carrots at both, the carrots the move then apart, is the replay of British strategy to prevent any
possible alliance between Germany and and Russia. Nothing new here. It is a standard imperial policy to destroy any alliance that threaten
the empire global domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears. ..."
"... If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians. ..."
"... Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation. ..."
"... The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. ..."
"... This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos." ..."
"... "I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker ..."
"... It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard ..."
"... One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. ..."
"... President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage. ..."
"... After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too. ..."
Moscow may no longer be a superpower, but its revanchist politics are unsettling the international order. How should Donald
Trump deal with Vladimir Putin?
... ... ...
It did not have to be this way. Twenty-five years ago, the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked not only the end of the Cold
War but also the beginning of what should have been a golden era of friendly relations between Russia and the West. With enthusiasm,
it seemed, Russians embraced both capitalism and democracy. To an extent that was startling, Russian cities became Westernized. Empty
shelves and po-faced propaganda gave way to abundance and dazzling advertisements.
Contrary to the fears of some, there was a new world order after 1991. The world became a markedly more peaceful place as the
flows of money and arms that had turned so many regional disputes into proxy wars dried up. American economists rushed to advise
Russian politicians. American multinationals hurried to invest.
Go back a quarter century to 1991 and imagine three more or less equally plausible futures. First, imagine that the coup by hard-liners
in August of that year had been more competently executed and that the Soviet Union had been preserved. Second, imagine a much more
violent dissolution of the Soviet system in which ethnic and regional tensions escalated much further, producing the kind of "super-Yugoslavia"
Kissinger has occasionally warned about. Finally, imagine a happily-ever-after history, in which Russia's economy thrived on the
basis of capitalism and globalization, growing at Asian rates.
Russia could have been deep-frozen. It could have disintegrated. It could have boomed. No one in 1991 knew which of these futures
we would get. In fact, we got none of them. Russia has retained the democratic institutions that were established after 1991, but
the rule of law has not taken root, and, under Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian nationalist form of government has established itself
that is notably ruthless in its suppression of opposition and criticism. Despite centrifugal forces, most obviously in the Caucasus,
the Russian Federation has held together. However, the economy has performed much less well than might have been hoped. Between 1992
and 2016, the real compound annual
growth rate of Russian per capita GDP has been 1.5 percent. Compare that with equivalent figures for India (5.1 percent) and
China (8.9 percent).
Today, the Russian economy accounts for just over 3 percent of global output, according to the International Monetary Fund's
estimates based on purchasing
power parity. The U.S. share is 16 percent. The Chinese share is 18 percent. Calculated on a current dollar basis, Russia's GDP is
less than 7 percent of America's. The British economy is twice the size of Russia's.
Moreover, the reliance of the Russian economy on exported fossil fuels - as well as other primary products - is shocking. Nearly
two-thirds of Russian exports are petroleum (63 percent), according the
Observatory of Economic Complexity.
... ... ...
Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed
at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious
not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements
for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears.
Nearly 10 years later, even Putin's most splenetic critics would be well-advised to reflect for a moment on our own part in the
deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow. The Russian view that the fault lies partly with Western overreach deserves
to be taken more seriously than it generally is.
Is the West to blame?
If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated
the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians.
Certain decisions still seem to me defensible. Given their experiences in the middle of the 20th century, the Poles and the Czechs
deserved both the security afforded by NATO membership (from 1999, when they joined along with Hungary) and the economic opportunities
offered by EU membership (from 2004). Yet the U.S. decision in March 2007 to build an anti-ballistic missile defense site in Poland
along with a radar station in the Czech Republic seems, with hindsight, more questionable, as does the subsequent decision to deploy
10 two-stage missile interceptors and a battery of MIM-104 Patriot missiles in Poland. Though notionally intended to detect and
counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The
subsequent deployment of Iskander
short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation.
A similar act of retaliation followed in 2008 when, with encouragement from some EU states, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence
from Serbia. In response, Russia recognized rebels in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and invaded those parts of Georgia. From a Russian perspective, this was no different from what the West had
done in Kosovo.
The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership
and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. I well remember the
giddy mood at a pro-European conference in Yalta in September 2013, when Western representatives almost unanimously exhorted Ukraine
to follow the Polish path. Not nearly enough consideration was given to the very different way Russia regards Ukraine nor to the
obvious West-East divisions within Ukraine itself. This was despite an explicit
warning from Putin's
aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest,"
a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos."
This is not in any way to legitimize the Russian actions of 2014, which were in clear violation of international law and agreements.
It is to criticize successive administrations for paying too little heed to Russia's sensitivities and likely reactions.
"I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama
told the New Yorker's
David Remnick in early 2014. The very opposite was true. He and his predecessor badly needed advisors who understood Russia as well
as Kennan did. As Kissinger has often remarked, history is to nations what character is to people. In recent years, American
policymakers have tended to forget that and then to wax indignant when other states act in ways that a knowledge of history might
have enabled them to anticipate. No country, it might be said, has had its character more conditioned by its history than Russia.
It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of
medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard, the crime
scene of Joseph Stalin's man-made famine, and the main target of Adolf Hitler's Operation Barbarossa.
One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted
in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement
might have made the Minsk agreements effective. It was certainly a disastrous blunder to give Putin an admission ticket into
the Syrian conflict by leaving to him the (partial) removal of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. One of Kissinger's lasting achievements
in the early 1970s was to squeeze the Soviets out of the Middle East. The Obama administration has undone that, with dire consequences.
We see in Aleppo the Russian military for what it is: a master of the mid-20th-century tactic of winning victories through the indiscriminate
bombing of cities.
Left: Free Syrian Army fighters fire an anti-aircraft weapon in Aleppo on Dec. 12. (Photo by AFP/Getty Images); Right: Far-right
Ukrainian activists attack the office of the pro-Russian movement "Ukrainian Choice" in Kiev on Nov. 21. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty
Images)
What price peace?
Yet I remain to be convinced that the correct response to these errors of American policy is to swing from underestimating Russia
to overestimating it. Such an approach has the potential to be just another variation on the theme of misunderstanding.
It is not difficult to infer what Putin would like to get in any "great deal" between himself and Trump. Item No. 1 would be a
lifting of sanctions. Item No. 2 would be an end to the war in Syria on Russia's terms - which would include the preservation of
Assad in power for at least some "decent interval." Item No. 3 would be a de facto recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and
some constitutional change designed to render the government in Kiev impotent by giving the country's eastern Donbass region a permanent
pro-Russian veto power.
What is hard to understand is why the United States would want give Russia even a fraction of all this. What exactly would Russia
be giving the United States in return for such concessions? That is the question that Trump's national security team needs to ask
itself before he so much as takes a courtesy call from the Kremlin.
There is no question that the war in Syria needs to end, just as the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine needs resolution. But
the terms of peace can and must be very different from those that Putin has in mind. Any deal that pacified Syria by sacrificing
Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to
exploit that American advantage.
... ... ...
The Russian Question itself can be settled another day. But by reframing the international order on the basis of cooperation rather
than deadlock in the Security Council, the United States at least poses the question in a new way. Will Russia learn to cooperate
with the other great powers? Or will it continue to be the opponent of international order? Perhaps the latter is the option it will
choose. After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from
escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian
Gulf.
However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able
to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite.
Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's
economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too.
That's good: "What is disturbing
with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian
leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. "
Notable quotes:
"... The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. ..."
The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact
of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously
will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that
Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton?
What is disturbing
with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian
leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent.
Casting blame in Moscow's direction prevents us from productively
discussing the grave problems we face as societies, and simplistically reduces the uncertainties and risks of an increasingly interdependent
world to the great powers rivalry.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens ..."
"... All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity. ..."
But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force
the US to intervene.
It could be the reverse, that it's the US that is orchestrating them to create a situation
that the US can then claim a necessity to intervene. The continuity of US policy persists
no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime
since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's
invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian
project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll
have to see what happens . The internal politics of Saudi Arabia are rather opaque so
what this internal power struggle is really about is hard to guess at particularly with the
sort of media we have. It's interesting how the Saudi Arabian-Israeli alliance has become
less covert these days and is now quite open.
Saudis are not used to receive missiles on their head. They panicked when the Yemeni missile
fell on their airport. I doubt that the crazy kinglet will start a war with Iran. What he
could do is a false flag that kills a few saudis ( chemical weapons) to call the USA to
retaliate
Yet they are so stupid that they would need Israeli expertise to setup the false flag. Israel
wont take the chance to be exposed.. so nothing will happen.
If they can't trigger US intervention they would just shut up and swallow their humilition,
while Israel would be continue its attacks on Syria under the sacred principle of self
protection.
Did this "penetration" make any military difference? The whole "civil war" in Syria has
been started by Israel and its US and KSA proxies, by organising and supporting terrorists.
Direct Israeli military action is nothing compared with unleashing terrorism crazies on the
nearby country, and even that big one lost. If the Israeli military was so mighty why did it
need the terrorists to fight on its behalf? Therefore, the Israeli bombing of Syria is
insignificant and out of pure frustration at a loss.
But a question for you – how does the Israeli bombing of Syria stack up against
Israel being presented as the ethereal victim in the US Ziomedia?
The ultimate irony of the situation is that Israeli effort to dominate and own the ME, by
getting US to attack Iraq and by fomenting sectarianism and terrorism in Syria, has bounced
back to make the situation much worse for Israel than before. My personal expectation was a
little different, I must admit. I expected that the terrorists of The Coalition of the Lovers
of Terrorism would win in Syria,but that the Takfiri crazies would then turn around and bite
the Israeli hand that fed them. Then Israel would get US to occupy Syria on its behalf, to
control the crazies that Israel unleashed. But Russia got involved unexpectedly and now the
last Israeli resort is to get its puppets to bleed in an attack on Iran. Attacking and
occupying Syria, just like Iraq, would have been cheaper for US than attacking Iran.
The almost suicidal US attack on Iran will be the ultimate test of Zionist control over
US, and it could change the things in US quite a lot.
The Saker is really good when he stays away from the weapon systems and mine is bigger than
yours. This strategic analysis of his is quite reasonable. Unlike what the trolls claim,
Saker is not predicting an attack on Iran and neither am I. Simply, there is a struggle going
on in US and EU, between the Zionist influence and the my-country-first resistance. The
Zionists have been winning so far at a huge cost to the countries which were tools of their
plans, they got away with the destruction of all five of the six countries targeted. But this
"success" has solidified the resistance in the tool countries, united some Sunnis (Turkey)
with the Shiites and, even worse, it has considerably strengthened the single remaining
target country – Iran. In other words, the destruction of five out of six countries has
been a very Pyrric victory of the Zionists.
My best guess are two possible outcomes – if the Zionists manage to get US to attack
Iran through some false-flag or otherwise, this will probably lead to the final dismounting
of US from the global stage and US will turn inward to political instability and even
possible civil war. In other words, the Zionists will spend up and sacrifice their main
source of blood and treasure.
The second possible outcome is a status quo with a lot of Israeli barking and strong
resistance in the US to being dragged into an attack on Iran. The Zionists have already used
up most of the credit that their Ziomedia had and no reasonably intelligent person in US
trusts a single word coming out of those media. I just cannot imagine another successful 911
type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. Yes, I feel that the Zionists
have already used up all their aces and I just cannot imagine them inventing another original
and powerful new war ace. I do not underestimate people's gullibility but US has been truly
economically too depleted to march into another war. In other words, if internal resistance
prevented attack on Iran in 2007, such attack is even less likely to pass in 2017 or later,
regardless of how much President Swamp is an Israeli puppet or not.
I'm not so certain that Trump intends to let the US get involved. The guy's a deal-maker and
businessman, not a soldier. Trump is simply not a bloodthirsty guy, or he would have sicced
every prosecutor he could get his hands on after the left for the way they're treating him.
He trolls his opponents a lot on twitter, but he does nothing to them except toss snide words
in their direction.
I think Trump sees his role in the Mideast as someone who sells the Israelis and Saudis
lots of expensive weapons systems, shakes their hand and wishes them Godspeed, but he's going
to let them get into trouble on their own. I don't see Trump as someone willing to go
adventuring in the Mideast because he doesn't have to prove his masculinity to himself. He's
already climbed to the top of the heap. He's president of the US. What else does he need to
prove? Nothing, really. I also think he wants to avoid making stupid mistakes. Throwing money
away into expensive quagmires is not his thing.
Israeli military prowess and invincibility is a 100% Hollywood fable
I agree with your assessment. Armies are hardened in combat under battle conditions
against equal or more powerful adversaries. In recent years, Hezbollah and the Syrian army
have become hardened and formidable as an unintended consequence of US/Israeli mischief in
Syria under the auspices of CIA/Mossad-created ISIS, and CIA-created Al Qaeda with its many
facets and pseudonyms. Iran has been training continuously for the imminent attack by US and
Zionist forces, and prevailed in the Iraq-Iran war of 1988, instigated by the US. Today, Iraq
and Iran are on their way to becoming a unified alliance against zionist and imperialistic
forces. The "Shia Crescent" is now a force worthy of awe and admiration.
Meanwhile, the much vaunted IDF has been battle-hardened (ha!) in combat with
stone-throwing children and unarmed Palestinian farmers, with hi-tech expensive anti-missile
defenses being used to bring down home made firecrackers from Hamas. As you point out, in
2006, just Hezbollah alone, without the aid of todays new found allies in Syria and Iraq (and
of course, Iran), was able to rout both aerial and ground attacks by Israel and beat them
back to run with their tails between their legs. 49 of Israel's Merkava tanks (self-declared
God's Chariot) were left as smoldering metal in that action, demolished by hand-held
anti-tank missiles.
Israel probably wants the Saudis to attack Hezbollah, certain to be defeated, and use that
to draw the US into a war against Lebanon. I doubt that they will succeed this time. I think
Netanyahu's precarious position with criminal indictments forthcoming will cause him to do
something stupid like attacking Lebanon. This will prove to be a bridge too far.
We may be seeing the early stages of the destruction of Israel. They may not have 5 years
left, certainly not 10. An unverified CIA memo informed former US President Bill Clinton that
Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022. That is just 5 years away, and the ducks seem to
be lining up in a row, regardless of whether such a memo was ever sent.
I hope you are right Kiza. However:
"I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into
a war on Iran. " Sorry, I can. When anyone says "Ziomedia" they basically mean the MSM in its
entirety. The US Executive & Legislature are also – still – in thrall to the
Zionists. Does anyone (switched on ) actually think it isn't so ?
The only rays of hope i have – & they are not insignificant – is that the
notion of actually attacking a State such as Iran, given its important, if no where near
absolute – advantages should give (the Sane) pause to seriously reconsider. I hope that
the US military still contains such sane individuals.
Short of direct US military intervention it becomes easier to imagine some barely plausible
(but completely "spinable" , provocation by the Israelis: a series of escalating bombing
raids on Iran for Israel's "security" ? A chemical warfare "site" ? A concentration of
Republican guards threatening Israel ?
Poor Israel ! There-was-no-alternative !
And should Iran DARE defend itself ? well it would be all bets off.
So, like the Saker, its all specualtion & worth – whatever but, things tend to go
along Ok -- until they don't.
I remember watching 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. On Israel part failure was
multilevel from top of the military to the bottom. General staff led by air man.
Concentration of almost all of land forces effort on small value prepared in advance target
making fool of oneself wasting time and energy on this target, while bombing civilian
targets. Inability to plan and take decisive deep moves to confront Hezbollah main forces
defeating which would make far more military sense . Obviously IDF did not feel they could
take losses associated with such course of actions and keep going and frankly I feel they
knew they could not considering what we know now about performance of Israeli army at all
levels. All in all israeli army got into the trap carefully prepared for them and got stuck
there. Hezbollah pinned it there along the border and processed with hitting Israel proper
showing complete failure of Israeli army and air force to achieve there goals. This is not
performance of one if the best. Strategic and tactical failures were glaring and fighting
spirit was poor as Israel could not do what was necessary to reverse the situation due to
internal wariness and inability to take losses.
The cruise-missile strike in Syria seemed more symbolic to get his detractors off his
back.
It "seemed" like he was caving in to the will of the swamp. Luckily, someone was kind
enough to inform him afterwards that only the swamp was applauding the event while his base,
and many independents, felt betrayed. That "symbolic" strike, based on transparently false
justifications, cost him a lot of domestic and international support.
Trump was at his strongest during the election. Every time WaPo or NYT tried to box him in
he'd laugh in their faces and pushed in the opposite direction. His popularity among the
voters surged whenever he refused to comply (or "get his detractors off his back").
Regarding Israel. I am not holocaust denier but the course choosen by Israeli and jewish
elites achieving own security and prosperity by denying it all to those who live next to them
is nausetic. By causing directly or indirectly all that suffering in the region Israel
completely forfeited what little justification it used to have to constantly cite Israeli
security concerns.
I would stay away from weapons system as I am not qualified. But when Sacker is not
writing about Soviet past but concentrates on such strategic issues like in his previous
article he produces very good pieces. While I do think his current piece is speculative on
nature, I would never dismiss predictability of stupidity. They did it in Lebanon in 2006.
They can do it again. Until those crazies from basement are completely removed along with
their backers influence there is no relaxing. Strange world. It all reminds of chimps
throwing feces at each other rather than intelligent species. We are wasting resources and
brain power to kill each other instead of going beyond our planet limits and investing in
This what we invest in war.
1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran
is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had
to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."
The latest version of the "Putin has won in Syria" argument, which is now being repeated so
often that the "merchandise" obviously isn't selling! If Putin makes himself the protector of
Iran as he has made himself the protector of Syria, so much the better! He irreversibly
bogged in Syria (as in Ukraine) and if he now goes and bogs himself down in Iran as well then
that's yet another nail in his coffin. We'll have to call him Vladimir Boggedownovitch!
Point 5 of the "Israeli" point of view is interesting. Israel and the US do indeed look like
total idiots and have indeed no credibility left. Who caused that? Putin! Obvious solution:
take out Putin! At that point, the problems in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and North Korea are
solved in one swoop and the Russian Federation returns to the peaceful place at the European
table that it was taking until somebody (American?) filled the little policeman's head with
pipedreams of "Eurasian" glory.
By the way, I never trust people who conceal their identity: Southfront, Moon of Alabama. It
usually means that the site is a front of some sort. Credibility zero, therefore.
You understanding of what it means to get bogged down is obviously confused and misplaced.
If you want real definition of getting bogged down look no further than USA in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
However, this is not preventing the Israelis from violating those air defenses on a
constant basis and attacking from the air the very capital of Syria, as admitted by the
Syrians themselves.
1. Stop obvious BS. Israeli DO NOT "violate" those air defense, since they do not attack
(and they can't) ANY Russian targets which those air defenses are there to protect.
Israel attacks SAA's targets. See the difference? Russia is not, at this stage, in the state
of war with Israel, which would open legal and operational framework for shooting down
Israel's AF assets.
2. Should Israel have had such an intention and attack Russian targets–we would be
living in a very different world today. Russians do not take lightly attacks on their targets
and the case of USS Liberty is impossible. The "argument" of Su-24 shot down by Turkish AF is
not applicable here. Why, is a separate issue. Israel knows it and is also in a full hysteria
mode as I type it and it is precisely because should the push comes to shove IDF's "plans" on
Syria will not work anymore. Especially, since Russian VKS MAY at some point of time get the
order to impose real no-fly zone. This is not to speak of the fact that Israelis DO inform
Russian forces in Syria on their plans.
3. Do not conflate two very different issues. This is exactly what you did.
The facts that I never get an answer to this question
Did you get the answer now or do you need this issue to be explained even more in
depth?
Look, I'm a simple civilian just trying to learn how these defenders of the Russian
military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed.
You "exposed" absolutely nothing and there are many "simple civilians" even in this threat
who have absolutely no difficulty in grasping key political, diplomatic and operational
issues re: Russian forces in Syria.
" I don't believe that the Syrian civil war and the rest of the Arab uprisings were
organized by any anglo-zionist conspiration.."
What you believe or don't ain't worthwhile but the Syrian war is not really a 'civil war'
at all and the fact that it originates with a zionist-ZUSA-Saudi conspiracy is well
established:
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
[...]Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United
States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims
The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been
frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of
the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the
WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange's book, plans to deliberately
destabilize the region go back at least five years further.[...]
WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that
the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to
encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and
Hezbollah.
" the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I
exposed."
You have exposed nothing, you are just a silly person.
Whether or not the Russian A.A systems are as good as advertised is another matter, but the
reason that Syria is not trying to shoot down the israelis is mainly because it does not need
further escalation at this time Syria has been fighting a very difficult war since 2011 and
engaging the israelis now would not be a smart move, even more so as it could provide
additional BS 'motives' for ZUSA to increase its illegal military footprint in the
country.
The job is to eliminate the main threat which are the various Salafi/mercenary groups
backed by the ZUSA coalition that have been plaguing the country since 2011.
That goal is getting closer & closer by the day. Isis nearly gone in Syria, after that;
the Nusra coalition in Idlib.
Calling the covert invasion of Syria a civil war is easy b/c we are conditioned to think
of Arabs and Muslims as incapable of living peacefully.
Very often, a complaint or set of complaints against one individual or group is really
aimed at another.
All the the anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing more than a device to neuter the one
group,
Arabs, who would be capable of disarming the mindless, pro-Israel lobby.
In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a building in eastern Syria that the
Israelis claimed held a covert nuclear reactor that had been built with North Korean
assistance. . . .
But nothing about that alleged reactor in the Syrian desert turns out to be what it
appeared at the time. The evidence now available shows that there was no such nuclear
reactor, and that the Israelis had misled George W. Bush's administration into
believing that it was in order to draw the United States into bombing missile storage
sites in Syria . Other evidence now suggests, moreover, that the Syrian government
had led the Israelis to believe wrongly that it was a key storage site for
Hezbollah missiles and rockets
All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise
the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten
once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity.
The bottom line is that Russia can't impose its will on Israel. If Israel decides to
bomb Russia's allies like Syria or Hezbollah Russia looks the other way.
utu,
With Israel, war is all about air defense – can Russia build up Syrian air defenses
– would it take a year or more – can it even be done?
On the other hand, Israel cannot change the situation on the ground with only air
power.
The bad guys are Wahhabist Saudi and Zionist Israel – they want war. The first is
incompetent, the second wants others to do it.
Agree.
Americans in Syria:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/secretary-mattis-is-off-base-us-military-presence-in-syria-has-no-legal-grounds/5618997
"The establishment of the US base near the Syria-Jordan border [in the area of the Syrian
town of al-Tanf] was publicly justified by the need to conduct operations against Islamic
State. However, no information has been received about any US operations against the group
conducted from this area. To the contrary, IS has been reported to operate freely in an
area abutting the [US] base . On and off, militant groups supposedly trained by Americans
in the area strike Syria government forces. The more US forces are in-theater in Syria, the
greater the chance of conflict between them and Syrian troops."
Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump
Administration's top
diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and
Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."
Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration
by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the
US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently
anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action
by " midwifing ,"
in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.
It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia
relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to
cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The
coup was bloody and divisive ,
resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not
flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in
economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into
positions of power.
You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their
failures. But the
corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist
elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so
vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI
borders that the Hungarian government has blocked
Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily
gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.
Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and
end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when
he directly challenged
the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading
Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he
said he was looking
into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian
territory.
Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of
Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia
interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the
unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that
landed him the Oval Office. Right?
Wrong!
If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was
co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is
funded largely by the US
government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex.
The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock
that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!
Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy
hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General
of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia
fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon
and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian
government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for
refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.
The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian
government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade ,
and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad
Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon
positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so
awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the
recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was
recently named
executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.
But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new
missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views?
Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is
a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis
Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell
warns that,
"From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United
States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening
vulnerable US allies."
Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:
By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions
been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world
witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global
order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so
hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!
Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed
that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."
We are "retreating"?
So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the
only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:
The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing
it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist
states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not
against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its
disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland
and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
The U.S. and its military proxy organization in Europe are doing their best to
further such a move:
The image of Atatürk was displayed as a target during the drill at NATO's Joint Warfare Center in Stavanger, Norway held between
Nov. 8 and Nov. 17, while a NATO soldier posted defamatory words about Erdoğan on the social media.
Atatürk is the founder of the secular Turkey. He was designated as "target" during a desk-top drill. NATO's Joint Warfare Center
is not a low level school but an elite officer training institution led by a Major-General. The 40 Turkish soldiers who attended
the training course were immediately ordered back home.
Secularists in Turkey have long suspected NATO as promoting "moderate Islamists". That believe is not without factual ground.
U.S. President Obama allied with the Muslim Brotherhood during the so called "Arab Spring". But the second incident at the very same
NATO institution points to a more comprehensive anti-Turkish position:
A Kurdish-origin Norwegian officer signed up to a social networking website within NATO, using a fake account in the name of President
Erdoğan and sharing posts against the organization.
To vilify the Turkish secularist hero Atatürk and its Islamist President Erdogan in related occasions is a comprehensive move
against the whole country.
NATO's political spokesperson Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian politician,
apologized
for the incidents. It will soothe no one.
A comparable incident happened in 2006. U.S. Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters
published a map with redrawn borders of Middle
East in the Armed Forces Journal . The map showed a "Free Kurdistan" and Turkey cut to half its size.
The map was then presented by an American
colonel at the NATO's Defense College in Rome while Turkish officers were attending. An uproar ensued and the U.S. had to apologize.
In July 2016 parts of the Turkish military attempted a coup against Erdogan. Turkish jets which attacked the capitol Ankara had
launched from the U.S. and NATO base in Incirlik. When the attempt failed several NATO countries granted asylum to Turkish officers
who did not want to return to their home country.
After the failed coup Turkey decided to buy Russian air defense systems. The move makes sense. The alternative U.S. systems are
suspected to be ineffective against attacking U.S. planes and missiles. The Russian S-400 systems is designed to counter threats
from U.S. weapons.
Turkey is a partner in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program. It has plans to purchase one hundred of them. Now the U.S. Air Force
suggests that the deal could be restricted:
If Turkey moves forward with its buy of a Russian air defense system, it will not be permitted to plug into NATO technology, and
further action may be forthcoming that could affect the country's acquisition or operation of the F-35, a top Air Force official
said Wednesday.
...
Analysts worry that Turkey operating both the S-400 and F-35 together could compromise the jet's security, as any data collected
by the air defense system and obtained by Russia could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities. For a platform
like the F-35, whose major strengths are its stealth and data fusion capabilities, that would be a disaster.
[The deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, Heidi] Grant, agreed that a S-400 acquisition creates
issues for Turkey's use of the F-35.
...
Her comments echoed those of Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of NATO's military committee. In October, Pavel said that Turkey is free,
as a sovereign nation, to make its own decisions in regards to military procurement, but will face "consequences" if a S-400 buy
goes through.
Buying a Russian air defense system is not unprecedented for a NATO state. In 1997 Cyprus bought Russian S-300 systems, ironically
to defend against Turkish jets. The Cyprus Missile
Crisis ensued and the weapons ended up in Greece where they also serve to keep the Turks away. Greece also flies U.S. made jets.
In Syria the U.S. is arming, training and fighting together with the YPK, a sister organization of the Kurdish PKK which is pursuing
a guerilla campaign against the Turkish army and state.
The personal disparaging of Turkish politicians by NATO, U.S. involvement in a coup attempt, restrictions on weapon buys and U.S.
cooperation with Turkey's enemy are amounting to an open affront.
It is obvious that NATO is no longer a reliable ally for Turkey. This view is independent of who holds the Turkish presidency.
The strategic situation would not change if Erdogan would be replaced by some secular nationalist figure.
Turkey fields NATO's second biggest army. With more than 80 million people it is a large emerging military and economic power.
It controls the Bosporus and thereby access to the Black Sea. It has influence in the Balkans as well as in the Central Asian "Stans".
It is a crossing point for major energy pathways including the new Russian TurkStream pipeline which will deliver Russian gas to
south-Europe.
The is little that hinders Turkey from leaving NATO and from joining a tacit alliance with Russia. Russian fighter jets are as
good as the U.S. designed F-35. Even Turkey's economic interests seem to be better aligned with Russia's than with north-Europe or
the United States. The voices in Turkey that demand a realignment are gaining ground. The editors of the Erdogan friendly Daily
Sabah
write :
The U.S. is not the enemy, but neither is it acting like a friend. Its actions are against Turkey's interests as well as its own.
Now is the right time for Turkey to formulate its own independent regional policy.
Russia and Iran with their sounder anti-Daesh and counterterrorism policies need to be at the center of measures Turkey will
implement from now on. After all that's happened, one thing is certain: The U.S. should definitely be kept out of Turkey's regional
policy concerns.
The Zionist lobby in the U.S. has
long argued to kick Turkey
out of NATO. Such a separation may indeed come true. But it would be Turkey that would leave NATO and not the other way around. The
effects would be quote different than those expected a decade ago.
Posted by b on November 17, 2017 at 02:22 PM |
Permalink
More you Piss Off Turkey, more it goes East !!(Is this the Policy of US?) No Issues, Turkey and Erdogan have thumbed it's Nose
to USA and is in Secret block of Russia, China & Pakistan. It will Seek it's Ottoman Glory with the "Stans" of Central Asia. Just
gave Pakistan $1.45 million Line of Credit & full "Technology Transfer" of A129 Attack Helicopters to Pakistan. Russian M400 Missiles,
etc etc. US keeps eyes closed, World is closing in Fast. And Mr Trump is losing faster. Disaster trip to Asia. China spun a great
spell. US is going down.
The US admnistration hates Erdogan and he hates them in return.
After it failed to kick Erdogan out with the 'amateurish' coup, opponents to Erdogan who are in NATO and in the US administration
are doing all they can to undermine Erdogan, to put him in the defensive, to isolate him and to weaken him even more. They are
working so he won't be elected president in 2019 and Turkey would be ripe for compromises on Palestine.
It is part of Trump's strategy to force an Israel-Palestinian peace plan worked out by Zionists advisors to Trump. The opponents
to this plan, Syria,Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Hamas are been subjected to all sorts of assaults to destabilize
them and make weaker so they have no choice than to bow.
Parallely Trump is also weakening Israel as he wants serious compromise that the jewish State is not ready to give. Therefore
a campaign against Netanyahu is going on to weaken him or replace him.
We will therefore not see large attacks but relentless small attacks on these countries..
In the hands of Trump, Jared, MBS and Netanyahu, the 'plan' risks to make Iran Greater and Saudi Arabia and the USA Smaller!
"The purchase...could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities."
Hahahahah, good joke, the F-35 is a billion dollar deathtrap. To be prevented from purchasing them would be a godsend for Turkey.
Turkey has long played the fan dance between East (Russia) and West (Western European powers). This time is no different. It was
just a few years ago that Turkey was such a friend to the US and European interests. The failed coup, however, has changed that
but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest flip flop.
The structural problem of "macro NATO" concept is that it puts together countries that have very little in common, or more precisely,
with many seething mutual conflicts. That would matter little if there was a unifying threat, but nothing like that exists.
Supporting Turkey and "free Kurdistan" is an obvious hard case, but Turkey has checkered relationship with KSA+UAE -- while
being close to Qatar, and with Greece. Greece and Bulgaria have no enmity toward Russia, although the current government seems
to follow anti-Russian line.
Then there is an issue why countries far from Russia and lacking alternative "enemies" or post-colonial clients should strive
to keep defense spending at NATO agreed level of 2% of GDP. And huge prices of NATO approved weapon systems. Lithuania increased
military spending to the "required 2%" and it still cannot afford tanks (I did not check other Baltic states). Clearly, arms race
is cheaper for Russia that has complete domestic military industry, lower costs and more cost aware process of weapon design,
so the scheme to beggar Russia with arms race is good only for the overfed western arms producers.
Turkey has decent economy and good strategic position: key straits under control and complicated mountain ranges along problematic
borders, so it should survive leaving NATO without loosing quiet sleep. At worst, they should improve relationship with neighbors
and their own Kurds, and NATO is more hindrance than help in that respect.
„The failed coup, however, has changed that but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest
flip flop."
Please be not that much sure about this coup. People who are better informed do not share the estimation that it was a Western-plotted
thing, at least not in its final execution. Some people in Turkey call it a controlled coup. True is that this „moderate Islam"
thing was supported by the West, including Saudi-Arabia, but Erdogan/AKP knew this, used its benefits until the very last moment
and Erdogan himself welcomed the dirty tricks that his (Gülen-) police people used against his Kemalist opposition.
I can't help but notice that Turkey would have avoided all these problems entirely if they had refused to allow terrorists to
attack Syria from its territory from the very beginning. Without Turkey, the war against Syria would have collapsed before it
even started, saving everyone enormous heartache and pain.
NATO is a multi-purpose US/UK/Israel Proxy Force and a Figleaf for offensive Full Spectrum Dominance. Other member states are
there because there are pictures of their leaders with their pants down.
Unbelievable. Why antagonize Turkey/Erdogan so directly?
No, really ... it's unbelievable. Such 'social proof' of a NATO-Turkish rift will no doubt cause Vlad to allow Erdogan certain
liberties ... like remaining in Idlib and standing in the way of improved Kurdish-Syria relations.
An unavoidable truth being swept under the rug, most certainly! Erdogan is every bit as responsible for the deaths, mayhem
and destruction as Obama and other facilitators. A trial followed by the gallows is what their fate ought to be. Erdogan may have
changed his direction due to external factors, but his initial direction and the crimes he ordered to occur cannot be forgotten
or forgiven.
@10 somebody's jewish paranoia has been triggered (again)
"Russia supported US Evangelical right wing" is almost as laughable as "Russia hacked the election" with $100k in facebook
ads.
The evidence-free allegation in the first link ...
Russia's masters, whether political or ecclesiastical, have generally been skilled at cultivating friendships and tactical
alliances ...
... is promptly contradicted by:
... there will always be limits to the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and America's evangelicals. Theologically,
they are a long way apart.... [and US] Evangelicals tend to be philo-Semitic and pro-Israel [and] tend to be
uncompromisingly anti-Islam, but conservative Russian Christians ... get along quite well with traditionalist Muslims ... And
it is hard to argue that Russian society has anything to teach America about "family values"; rates of divorce and abortion
are much higher in Russia than in America.
Then there is the issue of religious freedom in Russia. The meeting on Christian persecution that recently convened in
Washington, DC, was originally scheduled to take place in Moscow; but the venue was changed after Russia passed a law that
curbed evangelical missionary work, upsetting American Protestants.
the dog erdogan and his donmeh jewish corleone family have stripped syria bare. taken a billion dollars of plant based machinary
helped destroy a world heritage site aleppo.
helped israel ant it's year zero oded yinon projects. turkey and israel are the nexus of one of the world largest live organ human
shipping industries only out done by china.
without turkey and jordan the satanick warcrimes in syria could not of happened. as someone called billy hayes said above never
trust a turk.
when you speak to the average turk they have zero knowledge of erdogans crimes and blame everyone else but themselves.
dog erdo gets upset at a photoshop image of himself as target, and does not blink at his israeli arts projects in syria for
the zionist history erasures. the rape and destruction of an ancient place theft of billions of dollars of oil sold onto tel aviv.
this fella is a donmeh satanist a mason a tool who and should be kept at arms length assad and syria should never forgive the
crimes of this pimp.
...To the posting matter....Turkey is just part of the realignment of nations that is occurring before our eyes. I keep wanting
to see a chart of the evolving multipolar world but the game is still in play so one must practice patience....
When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence
community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies
(NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition:
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and
over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on
which the government can play." ―
Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails
to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead
to success."
―
Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed
U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from
the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own
admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.
... ... ...
To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played
a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special
counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear
document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the
dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the
dossier?
The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American
citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit
document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a
single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump
team members.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with
one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to
multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo
meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak
of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian
hackers.
William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the
conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24
-- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia
interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first
reported by The Intercept.
The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by
saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community
assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . .
As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning
director and screenwriter
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent,
and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of
where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and
a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold
War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and
LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping
of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account
for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered
and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John
F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace
"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely
and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of
what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal
and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America
has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin
hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the
Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to
resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016
presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party
working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility
to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading
[this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen
, author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture
of Texas
Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .
Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent
U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot
to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama
administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.
The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For
Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public
and government into wars and misadventures."
Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn
in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions
since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive
adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly
by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.
But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally,
why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios
he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an
intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from
the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival.
That's his major contribution.
His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small
size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story
– teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired
up activists who were his contemporaries.
He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the
earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least
from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with
making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States,
but now it's a capitalist country.
That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the
"plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns
come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are
contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells
about a plot.
Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy
organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand
knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista
paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders
and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the
South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war
in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and
the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated
coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.
These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism"
– in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new
pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions:
in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia,
and Libya.
In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American
exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world,
spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated
military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion,
Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged
Russian outrages.
Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business
of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military
bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined."
And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further,
"The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's
riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this
country."
Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life
expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National
pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State
Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's
ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003
and Libya in 2011.
The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached
in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United
States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."
By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never
to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken
effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been
up to, the author is not to blame.
Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic
Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book
in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic
Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and
Russian officials.
Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military
interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still
existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological
influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its
critical role in winning [World War] II."
Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution
and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals
of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social
security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the
grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements,
is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people
around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist
revolution with such ideals."
Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong
side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not
on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"
The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived
that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.
Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral
Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington
intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.
This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he
ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting
this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal
clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.)
The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss
of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military
maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security
state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify
the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic
system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear
war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.
This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book
is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling
case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The
book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded
youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it
in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used
by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including
using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely
gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since
the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it
probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people,
as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now
a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning
to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent,
reports Robert Parry.
The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia
hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as
"useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors
are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New
York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."
Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for
any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links
to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political
ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail:
Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."
Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings
several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington
and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage.
On Monday, The Washington Post published
a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."
The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously
true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading
"Russian propaganda."
We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her
new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket
after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.
Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from
the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the
response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is
particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda,
spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."
In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear
anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.
Pressing the Tech Companies
Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his
committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's
Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians
to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled
before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017.Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies
displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.
Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett
told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."
Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's
display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether
the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account
to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."
The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account
to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm."
But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people
who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto
Twitter through a Moscow hotel.
Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet.
It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and
Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the
category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.
Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided
by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St.
Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described
in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions
that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were
traced back to this organization was not made clear.
And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users,
which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.
The Trouble with 'Trolling'
While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow
unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and
corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled
at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.
Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use
access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption,
or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.
As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used
by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and
supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators.
In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.
The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists,
psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's
positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.
The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of
those
efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid
for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia
that undertakes
"strategic communications."
Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered
many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National
Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant
malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.
It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing
so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when
the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters
could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of
the story to the outside world.
During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of
organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then,
the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free
flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.
Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan
protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government
of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.
Swinging the Social Media Club
The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting
the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and
deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which
taught
activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.
A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.
While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger –
and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise.
In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives
challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.
One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government
rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media
to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without
fear of beheading.
Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of
the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists
uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.
The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense"
group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was
awarded the short-documentary
Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were
staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.
Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's
U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own
medicine.
After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule
of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow
against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those
protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."
However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate
investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded
the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.
The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of
a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump
– although
no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia
"hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies
any meddling.
Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy.
The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton
and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing
relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's
paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play
features of the Clinton Foundation.
A Manchurian Candidate?
Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White
House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing
the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always
that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.
Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence
of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something,
Facebook reported
$100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent
were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to
Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this
very large lake after Clinton had already lost.
So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions
in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against
blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages
featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose
although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).
The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps
growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the
way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could
have reached billions of people.
Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions
of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the
Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.
Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate
to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference
in American elections and policymaking.
For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard
Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam
War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history
only gained
The
New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier
volumes of evidence as "rumors."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in
collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back
to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially
doom Carter's reelection hopes.
There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative
journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret
arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme,
was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October
Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation
in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia
listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."
Israeli Influence
And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies,
there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost
any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s
when
Sen.
Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts
with the Palestinians.
If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings
of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress
and count how often
Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign
leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)
So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend
a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of
U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East
to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu
did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?
Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia
while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised,
were treated largely as non-stories.
Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now
– with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what
little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence
and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?
The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests
in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex,
which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives,
who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.
After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten
down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.
Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a
"regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country
might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western
client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear
strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.
The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump
and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have
blinded them to
the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the
hands of the war-hungry neocons.
A Smokescreen for Repression
There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen
for
clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties
have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled
and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine
are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."
The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants
will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing
and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian
propaganda."
The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California,
warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms,
and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."
As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation
from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better
are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.
I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as
a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have
learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political
ad criticizing New York City.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson
grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on
life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this
wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where
nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that
calls itself America.
When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that,
that is enough said.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm
This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage
in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies
and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.
One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook
to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions.
The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises
not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed
world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.
The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing
social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted
"discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize
real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."
The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label
all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing
opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.
Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing
organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in
treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.
Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting
that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive
to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn
us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research
a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these
warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price
we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always
been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.
Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards'
to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the
stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally
arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911
one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed,
and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty
conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.
All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another
lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise
my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.
Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished
for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm
Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil
protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger!
Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping
fascism have sure got it backward.
Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg
-- to your two names.
Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm
Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate
a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely
as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle
and Plato warned thousands of years ago.
It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well
as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts
in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine
the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence
upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.
Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought
and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish
devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real
intention.
Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Great essay.
But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid
of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson
arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in
Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea
of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed
by the neocons.
But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT,
the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake
– something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart"
and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart"
Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable
commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's
seemingly impossible victory.
Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm
How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about
it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the
real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.
Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm
Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another
decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the
last one?
I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far
more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry
points out here yet again.
As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign
against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.
Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe
perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with
me as well.
That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate
it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was
dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?
The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over,
including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying
Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm
I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken
aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her
apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house
-- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans
-- were driven by Russia-Gate.
Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences:
that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered
Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.
Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night
and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our
political stage in the USA is a madhouse.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm
These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only
very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since
the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in
the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere
of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have
contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing
these all.
Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet
Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist
countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems,
they could get in trouble even more.
I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign
can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism
and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely
abhorrent, in my view.
Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state.
There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the
US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will
be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian
government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not
just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.
occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am
Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon
pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the
way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was
rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?)
Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The
Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only
interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.
In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was
able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a
warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons
have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for
the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998).
Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks
to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller
Investigations.
Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm
You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism.
Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian
manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting
comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but
the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his
sterling reputation for me.
Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm
If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all
based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?
anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace
yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former
supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.
Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm
It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist
witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while
the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped
in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's
slander machine.
At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the
path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something
they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the
unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold
War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the
new order.
So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The
dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation
of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to
dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious,
the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe
that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then
dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts
could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution,
and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going
to die in the fifties.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Truman started it. And he used it very well.
THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland
This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement
his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound
emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor
legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which
is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes
-- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.
The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association,
and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political
and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon
of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets
most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.
You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures
of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and
their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working
democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era,
when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer
the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:
Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to
the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded
FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower
gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable
of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass
in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!
Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm
Howard,
I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted
with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm
I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.
David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm
I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian
dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.
Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm
David G –
They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse
the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom
Fries".
It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology.
Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!
Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living
in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I
am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative
AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.
I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm
You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact
"last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise
in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:
Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as
a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners"
in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and
Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.
In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will
"work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".
In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth
and facts is called "verification".
The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations'
zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential
election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.
Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US
plan to dismember the Syrian state.
With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of
Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon
and Syria.
South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in
southern Lebanon.
Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned
assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.
Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads
are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.
"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006
due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key
strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in
Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in
the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure
to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of
the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah.
Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be
initiated by Israel.
"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the
north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible
to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah
units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire
on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most
likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure
and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected
and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.
"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless
of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare
systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic
communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war.
Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the
pre-defined call signs and codes.
"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping
mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number
of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare
for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory
as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols
and checkpoints will cause further losses.
"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure,
allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's
missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough
of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon
IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the
bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets
do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel,
causing further losses.
"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain
is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises.
Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that
they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.
"Conclusions
"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli
public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would
be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities,
Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far
demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.
"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are
paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli
leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality,
Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous
neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah,
it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who
served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous
terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights,
tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.
"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time
for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says:
'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."
Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary
of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business
with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law
(Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping
company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.
From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in
a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners
include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S.
Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report
was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings."
Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium
News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation
to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within
its borders.
In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate
interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to
US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a
normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not
know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since
when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company
that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become
sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?
I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years
from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?"
President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening
day of the movie.
Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think
Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the
blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.
Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence
for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists
largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established
fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence
services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian
people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia
or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that
they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't
recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive,
this is completely absurd.
McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain
political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated
by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think
there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia
linked", they have become right-wing extremists.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm
"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world
to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."
Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising
their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine.
The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead,
Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations
War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply,
to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message
of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion
and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who
try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos
to this minister for screening the film.
The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016)
examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.
This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the
U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's
favor.
Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts,
and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the
founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that
looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.
Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media
culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian
Conflict.
The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle
for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified
over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly
right-wing policies.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am
Abe –
The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish
some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview
is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA
This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.
It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered
the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks
to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every
where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy
witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.
As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a
people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it
was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the
country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people
into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre,
she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes
to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle
still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just
a ploy in the scam.
Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm
"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons
by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for
Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses
have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they
are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."
And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further
weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows
that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think
many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure
of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.
Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm
You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure
the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later
Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his
first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm
In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed
the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges,
and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after
his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)
Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to
McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the
Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part
of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead
of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless
McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)
Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm
On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special
titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips
from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:
"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as
indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault
is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather
successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"
CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive
responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup
Poll dropped and was never to rise again.
Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to
vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens
United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many
was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it
is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with
Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist
crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with
their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the
50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.
geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am
I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow
I didn't get to it.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am
So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes
wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the
day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous
behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils
down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If
you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with
you simply by calling them the enemy.
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am
John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three
posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner,
mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared
on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University,
and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising
scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held
in December in Silicon Valley.
john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including
investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention
and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't
appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where
you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever.
If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever
mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are
due for rendition anytime now!! LOL
Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space
below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's
comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.
My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he
is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org.
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.
The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)
Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Maybe some technical problem on the site.
Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at
least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before
hitting the "post comment" button.
In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're
using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.
K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am
I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia
nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting.
Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing.
The media is inept. Very bizarre times.
Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate
and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I
could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped
up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama
Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.
Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in
Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic
relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International
Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle
State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.
To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing
firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking
"What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.
If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.
That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that
hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was
doing!
Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of
the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to
Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering
what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?
So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I
would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she
lost.
After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must
say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of
some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing
at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference
between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes,
illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with'
or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course
any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the
Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.
I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel
better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo,
Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.
Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the
Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western
Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual
Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening
in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least.
The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in
decline for four decades or so now.
From Robert Parry's article:
"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility.
You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do
something about it. Or we will."
Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals
of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch
him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.
Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes
on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In
Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly
or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for
all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME
and many countries in Africa.
Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately
called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to
person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for
more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have
many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic
or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.
As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era.
It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or
academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is
much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership
in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did
not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?
Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm
If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss
it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!
I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe
the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia
conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering
their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that
conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive
us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in
the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars
to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the
Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy
which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would
make money for the Media.
The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield
and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading
up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.
This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend
a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.
The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They
cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment
and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential
election.
Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations
who would profit from a new Cold War.
Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.
CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm
Things not talked about:
1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space
for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because
he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the
Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.
The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's
Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again)
in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in
ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.
Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman?
Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his
own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken
of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants
to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces
us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election
but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.
It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to
support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this
by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.
It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and
how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under
the present administration.
It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will
not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders
who will pave the path forward to a better future.
Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power
structure and conspires to deceive us all.
Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have
beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that
a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others
(but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy,
has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals,
political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying
societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.
It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred
years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere.
I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because
"Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of
Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".
Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to
ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely
at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing
to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being
pulled on the sheeple.
Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly
as the moderator will delete it within the hour.
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake
news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York
Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and
confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about
Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.
So the recent decision by Times editors to
publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the
Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so
entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real
trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that
contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.
The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title
"With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration,
Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess
Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a
mere deputy assistant secretary.
The story Farkas tells goes like this.
First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn
between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to
join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia,
which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened
Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.
Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never
about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's
motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and
autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.
Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become
president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to
Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic
election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in
Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own
borders.
In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened
ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the
expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist
movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that
continues to this day."
To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort
was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent
bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere
prevail .
Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United
States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile --
but arguably defensive -- Russian response.
In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a
formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the
West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made
possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling
on.
That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics,
and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.
That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than
a few Western observers had warned against such a response.
The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this
was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption
of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D.
Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet
bloc.
That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation
for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a
knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls
Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times
will acknowledge that reality.
Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally
guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State
Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should
govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no
interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the
U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)
That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause.
Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability
to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply
on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine
to that sorry list.
Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's?
After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the
American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's
sake.
Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears
to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American
statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the
United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should
circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash
while purchasing American weaponry.
Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas
concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's
man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too
soon.
As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests
that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about.
Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the
hubris that helped make Trump possible.
Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative
This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The
use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their
reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in
America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen
U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or,
God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you?
Why aren't they doing so?
1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'
2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively
promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they
backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.
So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods
published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't
agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas
shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or
organization.
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way.
"Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through
reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more
accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone
or thing of bad journalism.
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a
democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military
obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately
ruinous.
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an
election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for
its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the
importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping
voters in the dark.
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"
Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog
Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.
Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic
Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."
Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's
Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions
of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second
thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out
of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what
direction they want to face in the future.
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he
rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy
positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/
build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly
filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make
an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can
make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term
"fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.)
Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr.
Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to
the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I
don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against
Manafort.
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not
only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in
the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American
politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues".
American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the
problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the
camp of the white flag.
I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious –
what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important,
actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.
An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared
Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by
monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of
Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?
The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments
and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces
"chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery
activity.
The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and
analysis even exist.
The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without
a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.
There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what
claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates
"fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New
York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.
I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of
fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might
at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.
I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and
what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each
has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally
opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as
"democracy."
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media?
We should.
The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of
Britain,
have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines.
Not as much, anyway.
Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media
is:
1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues
sense,' that is, to be politically correct.
2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of
magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.
3-They have agendas.
Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how,
when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers
are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?
4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar
workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing
for aggressive stands or even military attacks?
Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in
the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer
for combat duty.
Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.
Do not buy any major newspaper.
Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year:
fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news
think what I said over and you will see
Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it
into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we
will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce
another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and
unwashed.
All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the
economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious
in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the
corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end
to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of
deregulations etc.
Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards
and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack
of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to
make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and
it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.
nikbez
If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs
to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."
So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT
exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized
them) is wrong.
Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of
neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a
symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more
suitable answer than scapegoating.
Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.
It is interesting to access
George
Friedman after two and half years since it was made. Looks like he is a bad forcaster.
The Us plot to move Ukraine to the "Baltic states model" was the major geopolitical victory of the
Obama administration. and the EU has similar goals, so we can talk about joint invasion into traditional
Russian geopolitical space by the USA and EU.
Notable quotes:
"... This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view . While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist. ..."
"... Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult. ..."
"... Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. ..."
"... The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel. ..."
"... The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him. ..."
"... Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced. ..."
Editor's Note: This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in
July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his
miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent
temporary absence
from public view. While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing
act persist.
There is a general view that Vladimir Putin governs the Russian Federation as
a dictator, that he has defeated and intimidated his opponents and that he has marshaled a powerful
threat to surrounding countries. This is a reasonable view, but perhaps it should be re-evaluated
in the context of recent events.
Ukraine and the Bid to Reverse Russia's Decline
Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against
the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy.
On Jan. 1, Ukraine's president was Viktor Yanukovich, generally regarded as favorably inclined to
Russia. Given the complexity of Ukrainian society and politics, it would be unreasonable to say Ukraine
under him was merely a Russian puppet. But it is fair to say that under Yanukovich and his supporters,
fundamental Russian interests in Ukraine were secure.
This was extremely important to Putin. Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in
2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not
wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply
didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians
negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As
part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo.
But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to
the insult.
Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though
Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with
in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held
in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. He took a long time
before moving to
recreate Russian power, though he said early on that the fall of the Soviet Union had been the
greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. This did not mean he wanted to resurrect the
Soviet Union in its failed form, but rather that he wanted Russian power to be taken seriously again,
and he wanted to protect and enhance Russian national interests.
The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected
president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second
election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA
and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly,
this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation,
sending it the way of the Soviet Union. For him, Ukraine's importance to Russia was self-evident.
He therefore believed that the CIA organized the demonstration to put Russia in a dangerous position,
and that the only reason for this was the overarching desire to cripple or destroy Russia. Following
the Kosovo affair, Putin publicly moved from suspicion to hostility to the West.
The Russians worked from 2004 to 2010 to undo the Orange Revolution. They worked to rebuild the
Russian military, focus their intelligence apparatus and use whatever economic influence they had
to reshape their relationship with Ukraine. If they couldn't control Ukraine, they did not want it
to be controlled by the United States and Europe. This was, of course, not their only international
interest, but it was the pivotal one.
Russia's invasion of Georgia had more to do with Ukraine than it had to do with the Caucasus.
At the time, the United States was still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Washington had
no formal obligation to Georgia, there were close ties and implicit guarantees. The invasion of Georgia
was designed to do two things. The first was to show the region that the Russian military, which
had been in shambles in 2000, was able to act decisively in 2008. The second was to demonstrate to
the region, and particularly to Kiev, that American guarantees, explicit or implicit, had no value.
In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president of Ukraine, reversing the Orange Revolution and limiting
Western influence in the country.
Recognizing the rift that was developing with Russia and the general trend against the United
States in the region, the Obama administration tried to recreate older models of relationships when
Hillary Clinton presented Putin with a "reset" button in 2009. But Washington wanted to restore the
relationship in place during what Putin regarded as the "bad old days." He naturally had no interest
in such a reset. Instead, he saw the United States as having adopted a defensive posture, and he
intended to exploit his advantage.
One place he did so was in Europe, using EU dependence on Russian energy to grow closer to the
Continent, particularly Germany. But his high point came during the Syrian affair, when the Obama
administration threatened airstrikes after Damascus used chemical weapons only to back off from its
threat. The Russians aggressively opposed Obama's move, proposing a process of negotiations instead.
The Russians emerged from the crisis appearing decisive and capable, the United States indecisive
and feckless. Russian power accordingly appeared on the rise, and in spite of a weakening economy,
this boosted Putin's standing.
The Tide Turns Against Putin
Events in Ukraine this year, by contrast, have proved devastating to Putin. In January, Russia
dominated Ukraine. By February, Yanukovich had fled the country and a pro-Western government had
taken power. The general uprising against Kiev that Putin had been expecting in eastern Ukraine after
Yanukovich's ouster never happened. Meanwhile, the Kiev government, with Western advisers, implanted
itself more firmly. By July, the Russians controlled only small parts of Ukraine. These included
Crimea, where the Russians had always held overwhelming military force by virtue of treaty, and a
triangle of territory from Donetsk to Luhansk to Severodonetsk, where a small number of insurgents
apparently supported by Russian special operations forces controlled a dozen or so towns.
If no Ukrainian uprising occurred, Putin's strategy was to allow the
government in Kiev to unravel of its own accord and to split the United States from Europe by
exploiting Russia's strong trade and energy ties with the Continent. And this is where the
crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet is crucial. If it turns out - as appears to be the case -
that Russia supplied air defense systems to the separatists and sent crews to man them (since operating
those systems requires extensive training), Russia could be held responsible for shooting down the
plane. And this means Moscow's ability to divide the Europeans from the Americans would decline.
Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being
a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And
the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips
with how effective and rational he really is.
Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation
in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protege, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of,
among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban
missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw
his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had
resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.
Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin,
but
it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations.
After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic
product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures,
we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of
regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy.
Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things
worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion
for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to
the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100
per barrel.
Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western
media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being
tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great
victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many
leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built
his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before
Ukraine.
Imagining Russia After Putin
In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to
understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government,
even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course,
and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues
were frequently the most feared.
The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been
very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until
now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various
factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to
maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues
remove him.
It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional
process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic
standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin
is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of
Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But
there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?
Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated
in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling
badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to
say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important
people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be
replaced.
Putin is far from finished. But he has governed for 14 years counting the time Dmitri Medvedev
was officially in charge, and that is a long time. He may well regain his footing, but as things
stand at the moment, I would expect quiet thoughts to be stirring in his colleagues' minds. Putin
himself must be re-examining his options daily. Retreating in the face of the West and accepting
the status quo in Ukraine would be difficult, given that the Kosovo issue that helped propel him
to power and given what he has said about Ukraine over the years. But the current situation cannot
sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political
trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not
something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider
the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if
the situation deteriorates.
Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable
should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin
was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of
liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes
more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.
I am not sure the tail is wagging the dog in Middle East. The USA has Carter doctrine in
place which means that they need to dominate all petro states. That might explain high level
of animosity toward Iran, which is not a puppet regime as Carter doctrine requires. In this
sense Israel interests are probably highly congruent with the USA interests. Otherwise Netanyahu
would not be a prime minister. He proved to be greedy and reckless. The US intelligence
agencies probably have enough material to remove him without much noise.
Notable quotes:
"... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others). ..."
"... Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige. ..."
Can Generals James Mattis (US Secretary of Defense) and John Hyten (Head of US Strategic
Command) Prevent a Disaster?
Introduction
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish
American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war
with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing
Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The
buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation
toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten
recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there
are scores of others).
After many years, Israel and 'the 52 President' finally made the US withdraw from the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) because of its
detailed documentation of Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Trump complied with their
demands.
Tel Aviv demanded a Zionist fanatic and backer of the illegal Jewish settler occupation
of Palestinian lands, the bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman , be appointed US Ambassador to
Israel. Trump complied, despite the ambassador's overt conflict of interest.
Israel launched waves of savage bombings against Syrian government troops and facilities
engaged in a war against ISIS-mercenary terrorists. Israel, which had backed the terrorists in
its ambition to break-up of the secular Syrian state, demanded US support. Trump complied, and
sent more US arms to the anti-government terrorists.
Israel denounced the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework and Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action , signed by 6 major states and UN Security Council Members, (US, France, UK,
Germany, China and Russia). A furious Netanyahu demanded that President Trump follow Tel Aviv
and abrogate the multiparty agreement signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama . Trump complied
and the US is at risk of openly violating its international agreement.
Trump parrots Netanyahu's falsehoods to the letter: He raves that Iran, while technically in
compliance, has violated ' the spirit of the agreement' without citing a single instance
of actual violation. The 5 other signers of the ' Framework', the US military and the
UN's International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly certified Iran's strict compliance with
the accord. Trump rejects the evidence of countless experts among US allies and 'his own
generals' while embracing the hysterical lies from Israel and the ' 52' . Who would have
thought the 'hard-nosed' businessman Trump would be so ' spiritual' when it came to
honoring and breaking treaties and agreements!
Israel and the ' 52' have demanded that Washington imprison and fine US citizens
who have exercised their constitutional First Amendment Right of free speech by supporting the
international boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which is designed to end the
illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and crimes against Palestinians. Trump complied.
Americans may soon face over a decade in prison and complete economic ruin for supporting a
peaceful economic boycott of Israeli settler products. This will represent an unprecedented
violation of the US Constitution. At present, US public employees, like teachers in certain US
states, are facing job loss for refusing to sign a 'loyalty oath' not to boycott products from
Israel's illegal settlements. Desperate American victims of the floods and natural disasters in
Texas are being denied access to public US taxpayer relief funds unless they sign similar
loyalty oaths in support of Israel.
Israel demanded that the US appoint Zionist fanatic real estate attorney, Jason Greenblatt and real estate speculator, Jared Kushner as Middle East peace negotiators.
Trump
appointed South Carolina businesswoman Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the United Nations.
Israel pushed for Ms. Haley, the first US governor to criminalize support for the peaceful BDS
movement.
Trump went against the advice of ' his Generals' in his own cabinet regarding
Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement, and chose to comply with Netanyahu's demands.
Trump supports the long-standing Israeli project to maneuver a Kurdish takeover of
Northern Iraq, grabbing the oil-rich Kirkuk province and permanently divide the once secular,
nationalist Iraqi nation. Trump has sent arms and military advisers to the Kurds in war-torn
Syria as they attempt to grab territory for a separate 'Kurdistan'. This is part of an Israeli
plan to subdivide the Middle East into impotent tribal 'statelets'.
Trump rejected the Turkish government's demand to extradite CIA-Israeli-backed Fethullah
Gulen , self-exiled in the US since 1999, for his leadership role in the failed 2016 military
coup d'etat.
Like all his predecessors, Trump is completely submissive to Israeli-directed ' lobbies' (like AIPAC), which operate on behalf of a foreign power, in violation of the
1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Trump chose his Orthodox Zionist son-in-law, Jared
Kushner, a callow real estate investor and prominent supporter for war against Iran, as his
chief foreign policy adviser.
President Trump's irresponsible pandering to Israel and its American-Jewish agents has
caused deep unease among the Generals in his cabinet, as well as among active duty and retired
US military officers, who are skeptical about Tel Aviv's push for open-ended US wars in the
Middle East.
Ten Reasons Why Military Officers support America's Nuclear Accord with Iran
The Netanyahu-Israel First power configuration in Washington succeeded in convincing Trump
to tear-up the nuclear accord with Iran. This went against the advice and wishes of the top US
generals in the White House and active duty officers in the field who support the agreement and
recognize Iran's cooperation.
The Generals have ten solid reasons for rejecting the Netanyahu-Trump push to shred the
accord:
The agreement is working. By all reliable, independent and official observers, including
the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US intelligence community and the US Secretary of
State – Iran is complying with its side of the agreement.
If Trump violates the agreement, co-signed by the 6 members of the UN Security Council,
in order to truckle to the whims of Israel and its gang of ' 52', the US government will
lose all credibility among its allies. The US military will be equally tainted in its current
and future dealings with NATO and other military 'partners'.
Violation of the agreement will force the Iranians to restart their nuclear, as well as
advanced defensive, weapons programs, increasing the risk of an Israeli-Trump instigated
military confrontation. Any US war with Iran will be prolonged, costing the lives of tens of
thousands of US troops, its land bases in the Gulf States, and warships in the Persian Gulf.
Full-scale war with Iran, a large and well-armed country, would be a disaster for the entire
region.
US generals know from their earlier experiences under the George W. Bush
Administration that Zionist officials in Washington, in close collaboration with Israeli
handlers, worked tirelessly to engineer the US invasion of Iraq and the prolonged war in
Afghanistan. This led to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of US military personnel
as well as millions of civilian casualties in the invaded countries. The ensuing chaos created
the huge refugee crises now threatening the stability of Europe. The Generals view the
Israel-Firsters as irresponsible armchair warmongers and media propagandists, who have no 'skin
in the game' through any service in the US Armed Forces. They are correctly seen as agents for
a foreign entity.
US generals learned the lesson of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia –
where disastrous interventions led to defeats and loss of potential important regional
allies.
US generals, who are working with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to negotiate an
agreement with North Korea, know that Trump's breaking a negotiated agreement with Iran, only
reinforces North Korea's distrust of the US and will harden its opposition to a diplomatic
settlement on the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that a full-scale war with nuclear-armed North
Korea could wipe out tens of thousands of US troops and allies throughout the region and kill
or displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians.
US generals are deeply disturbed by the notion that their Commander in Chief, the elected
President of the United States, is taking his orders from Israel and its US proxies. They
dislike committing American blood and treasure for a foreign power whose policies have only
degraded US influence in the Middle East. The generals want to act for and in defense of US
national interests – and not Tel Aviv's.
US military officials resent the fact that Israel receives the most advanced US military
weapons and technology, which have been subsidized by the US taxpayers. In some cases, Israelis
receive advanced US weapons before US troops even have them. They also are aware that Israeli
intelligence agents (and American citizens) have spied on the US and received confidential
military information in order to preempt US policy. Israel operates within the United States
with total impunity!
US generals are concerned about negotiating accords with China over strategic military
issues of global importance. The constant catering and groveling to Israel, an insignificant
global economic entity, has reduced US prestige and status, as well as China's trust in the
validity of any military agreements with the Americans.
Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the
expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government,
pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly
exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great
Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are
placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore
American prestige.
Trump's decision not to certify Iran's compliance with the accord and his handing the
ultimate decision on an international agreement signed by the six members of the UN Security
Council over to the US Congress is ominous: He has effectively given potential war making
powers to a corrupt legislature, often derided as 'Israeli occupied territory', which has
always sided with Israeli and US Zionist war mongers. Trump is snubbing ' his' State
Department, the Pentagon and the various US Intelligence agencies while giving into the demands
of such Zionist zealots as New York Senator Charles Schumer , Netanyahu's alter ego in the US
Senate and a huge booster for war with Iran.
Conclusion
Trump's refusal to certify Iran's compliance with nuclear accord reflects the overwhelming
power of Israel within the US Presidency. Trump's rebuke of his generals and Secretary of State
Tillerson, the UN Security Council and the 5 major cosigners of the 2015 accord with Iran,
exposes the advanced degradation of the US Presidency and the US role in global politics.
All previous US Presidents have been influenced by the billionaire and millionaire die-hard
Israel-Firsters, who funded their electoral campaigns. But occasionally, some ' Commanders
in Chief' have decided to pursue policies favoring US national interest over Israel's
bellicose ambitions. Avoiding a catastrophic war in the Middle East is such a case: Obama chose
to negotiate and sign a nuclear accord with Iran. Tel Aviv's useful fool, Donald Trump, intends
to break the agreement and drag this nation further into the hell of regional war.
In this regard, international opinion has sided with America's generals. Only Israel and its
US acolytes on Wall Street and Hollywood applaud the blustering, bellicose Trump!
*
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New
York.He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in
professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of
Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles
in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian
Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde
Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He has a long history of
commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers
Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on
Repression in Latin America
These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much
deeper level.
Notable quotes:
"... I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible. ..."
"... Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature." ..."
"... These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level. ..."
"... Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
On November 30, 2016, presumably right at the stroke of midnight, Google Inc. unpersoned
CounterPunch. They didn't send out a press release or anything. They just quietly removed it
from the Google News aggregator. Not very many people noticed. This happened just as the "fake
news" hysteria was being unleashed by the corporate media, right around the time The Washington
Post ran
this neo-McCarthyite smear piece vicariously accusing CounterPunch, and a number of other
publications, of being "peddlers of Russian propaganda." As I'm sure you'll recall, that
astounding piece of "journalism" (which The Post was promptly forced to disavow with an absurd
disclaimer but has refused to retract) was based on the claims of an anonymous website
apparently staffed by a couple of teenagers and a formerly rabidly anti-Communist, now rabidly
anti-Putin think tank. Little did most people know at the time that these were just the opening
salvos in what has turned out to be an all-out crackdown on any and all forms of vocal
opposition to the global corporate ruling classes and their attempts to quash the ongoing
nationalist backlash against their neoliberal agenda.
Almost a year later, things are much clearer. If you haven't been following this story
closely, and you care at all about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and that kind of
stuff, you may want to take an hour or two and catch up a bit on what's been happening. I
offered a few examples of some of the measures governments and corporations have been taking to
stifle expressions of dissent in my latest
piece in CounterPunch , and there are many more detailed articles online, like this one by Andre
Damon from July, and this follow-up he published last
week (which reports that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges has also
been unpersoned). Or, if you're the type of soul who only believes what corporations tell you,
and who automatically dismisses anything published by a Trotskyist website, here's
one from last December in The Guardian, and an
op-ed in The New York Times , both of which at least report what Google, Twitter, and
Facebook are up to. Or you could read this
piece by Robert Parry , who also has "legitimate" (i.e., corporate) credentials, and who
hasn't been unpersoned just yet, although I'm sure they'll get around to him eventually.
I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise.
What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While
there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from
so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of
anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism,
where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning
CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like
Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to
readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and
articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible.
Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself
from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and
any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer
like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen
to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers
like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of
as "literature."
Yes, as you've probably guessed by now, in addition to writing political satire, I am, as
rogue journalist Caitlin Johnstone so aptly put it once, an "elitist wanker." I've spent the
majority of my adult life writing stage plays and working in the theater, and it doesn't get
any more elitist than that. My plays are published by "establishment" publishers, have won a
few awards, and have been produced internationally. I recently published my "debut novel"
(which is what you call it if you're an elitist wanker) and am currently trying to promote and
sell it. I mention this, not to blow my little horn, but to the set the stage to try to
illustrate how these post-Orwellian intimidation tactics (i.e., unpersoning people from the
Internet) work. These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much
deeper level.
The depressing fact of the matter is, in our brave new Internet-dominated world,
corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook (not to mention Amazon), are, for elitist
wankers like me, in the immortal words of Colonel Kurz, "either friends or they are truly
enemies to be feared." If you are in the elitist wanker business, regardless of whether you're
Jonathan Franzen, Garth Risk Hallberg, Margaret Atwood, or some "mid-list" or "emerging"
author, there is no getting around these corporations. So it's kind of foolish, professionally
speaking, to write a bunch of essays that will piss them off, and then publish these essays in
CounterPunch. Literary agents advise against this. Other elitist literary wankers, once they
discover what you've been doing, will avoid you like the bubonic plague. Although it's
perfectly fine to write books and movies about fictional evil corporations, writing about how
real corporations are using their power to mold societies into self-policing virtual prisons of
politically-correct, authoritarian consumers is well, it's something that is just not done in
professional elitist wanker circles.
Normally, all this goes without saying, as these days most elitist wankers are trained how
to write, and read, and think, in MFA conformity factories, where they screen out any unstable
weirdos with unhealthy interests in political matters. This is to avoid embarrassing episodes
like Harold
Pinter's Nobel Prize lecture (which, if you haven't read it, you probably should), and is
why so much of contemporary literature is so well-behaved and instantly forgettable. This
institutionalized screening system is also why the majority of journalists employed by
mainstream media outlets understand, without having to be told, what they are, and are not,
allowed to report. Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a
question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional
coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a
particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been
destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major
corporation.
Or let me provide you with a personal example.
A couple weeks ago, I googled myself (which we elitist wankers are wont to do), and noticed
that two of my published books had disappeared from the "Knowledge Panel" that appears in the
upper right of the search results. I also noticed that the people "People Also Search For" in
the panel had changed. For years, consistently, the people you saw there had been a variety of
other elitist literary wankers and leftist types. Suddenly, they were all rather right-wing
types, people like Ilana Mercer and John Derbyshire, and other VDARE writers. So that was a
little disconcerting.
I set out to contact the Google Search specialists to inquire about this mysterious
development, and was directed to a series of unhelpful web pages directing me to other
unhelpful pages with little boxes where you can write and submit a complaint to Google, which
they will completely ignore. Being an elitist literary wanker, I also wrote to Google Books,
and exchanged a number of cordial emails with an entity (let's call her Ms. O'Brien) who
explained that, for "a variety of reasons," the "visibility" of my books (which had been
consistently visible for many years) was subject to change from day to day, and that,
regrettably, she couldn't assist me further, and that sending her additional cordial emails was
probably a pointless waste of time. Ms. O'Brien was also pleased to report that my books had
been restored to "visibility," which, of course, when I checked, they hadn't.
"Whatever," I told myself, "this is silly. It's probably just some IT thing, maybe Google
Books updating its records, or something." However, I was still perplexed by the "People Also
Search For" switcheroo, because it's kind of misleading to link my writing to that of a bunch
of serious right-wingers. Imagine, if you were a dystopian sci-fi fan, and you googled me to
check out my book and see what else I had written, and so on, and my Google "Knowledge Panel"
popped up and displayed all these far-right VDARE folks. Unless you're a far-right VDARE type
yourself, that might be a little bit of a turn-off.
At that point, I wondered if I was getting paranoid. Because Google Search runs on
algorithms, right? And my political satire and commentary is published, not only in
CounterPunch, but also in The Unz Review, where these far-right-wing types are also published.
Moreover, my pieces are often reposted by what appear to be "Russia-linked" websites, and
everyone knows that the Russians are all a bunch of white supremacists, right? On top of which,
it's not like I'm Stephen King here. I am hardly famous enough to warrant the attention of any
post-Orwellian corporate conspiracy to stigmatize anti-establishment dissent by manipulating
how authors are displayed on Google (i.e., subtly linking them to white supremacists,
anti-Semites, and others of that ilk).
So, okay, I reasoned, what probably happened was over the course of twenty-four hours, for
no logical reason whatsoever, all the folks who had been googling me (along with other leftist
and literary figures) suddenly stopped googling me, all at once, while, more or less at the
exact same time, hundreds of right-wingers started googling me (along with those white
supremacist types they had, theoretically, already been googling). That kind of makes sense
when you think about it, right? I mean, Google couldn't be doing this intentionally. It must
have been some sort of algorithm that detected this sudden, seismic shift in the demographic of
people googling me.
Or, I don't know, does that possibly sound like a desperate attempt to rationalize the
malicious behavior of an unaccountable, more or less god-like, global corporation that wields
the power of life and death over my book sales and profile on the Internet (a more or less
god-like global corporation that could do a lot of additional damage to my sales and reputation
with complete impunity once the piece you're reading is published)? Or am I simply getting
paranoid, and, in fact, I've developed a secret white supremacist fan base without my
knowledge? Only Google knows for sure.
Such are the conundrums elitist literary wankers have to face these days that is, those of
us wankers who haven't learned to keep our fucking mouths shut yet. Probably the safest course
of action, regardless of whether I'm being paranoid or Google does have me on some kind of
list, is to lay off the anti-corporatist essays, and definitely stop contributing to
CounterPunch, not to mention The Unz Review, and probably also give up the whole dystopian
satire novel thing, and ensure that my second novel conforms to the "normal" elitist wanker
rules (which every literary wanker knows, but which, technically, do not exist). Who knows, if
I play my cards right, maybe I can even sell the rights to Miramax, or okay, some other
corporation.
Once that happens, I assume that Google will want to restore me to normal personhood, and
return my books to visibility, and I will ride off into the Hollywood sunset with the Clintons,
Clooneys, and Pichais, and maybe even Barack Obama himself, if he isn't off jet skiing with
Richard Branson, or having dinner with Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, who just happen to live right
down the street, or hawking the TPP on television. By that time, CounterPunch and all those
other "illegitimate" publications will have been forced onto the dark web anyway, so I won't be
giving up all that much. I know, that sounds pretty cold and cynical, but my liberal friends
will understand I just hope all my new white supremacist fans will find it in their hearts to
forgive me.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Thank you for mustering the courage and then taking the time to spell out these outrages in a
straightforward, unemotional way. I've appreciated the humor that centers your other essays,
but there's not a damned thing funny about this.
But why are things as they are? With billions aplenty, our rulers must be driven by their
libido dominandi. We're left to wonder only whether they get off more on ostracizing the
Hopkinses, on buying the politicians, or on herding the sheep from bathrooms to statues to
flags.
The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan
in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In
which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled
by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working
on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence
reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the
Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely
reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the
British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than
truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July
of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served
as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the
White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats'
go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator,
as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion
to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again
with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an
exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep
inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and
discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from
this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured
Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton,
and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign
governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note,
by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria.
As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain
about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made
up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop
(cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe
that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the
past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow
them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it
past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election.
It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied
on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration
covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's
pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others
working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a
"bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research
on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.
Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation
headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian
government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on
purported money laundering. On Monday,
indictments were filed against
former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.
But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier
compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was
bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC).
The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant
claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence
sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress
and a special prosecutor.
The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with
any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of
intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting
contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are
real
concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via
liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources
were also utilized by Steele.
According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel
to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself,"
Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played
absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was
released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to
Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."
Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and
provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any
way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need
to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.
An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less
than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community
in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called
Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017
Russian ICA.
Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream
media primetime.
It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company
that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence,
and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the
Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump
was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to
a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion
GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting
opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end
of the election cycle.
Perkins Coie is also home to Michael
Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration
of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach,
and, on May 4, 2016,
he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike,
for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence
of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the
FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.
When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and,
again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach
through
an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report
detailing the intrusion, ominously named
"Bears in the Midst."
This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet
of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with
a spokesperson from either
the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.
It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond
the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving
into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person
Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele
Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion
GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already
paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the
part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm
assets require the approval of either the
management or executive committee
of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).
But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports"
cobbled together from what
Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes
to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was
assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts
normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.
The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its
explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive
charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian
intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report
alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and
directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored
and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."
These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22,
when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal
deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled
to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention
when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors,"
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald
Trump."
If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton
campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the
2016 Aspen
Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack
of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready
to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration,
Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence
community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.
According to the
Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the
Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit
the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this
briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials
with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told
the New York Times
. The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives
-- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."
This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate
of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or
was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of
the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution,
shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community.
Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that
was used.
The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted
Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C,"
a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan
cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief
U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually
mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.
The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been
influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party
behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions
set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis
of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August
2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery?
If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent"
then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and
allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion
with Nazi U-boat commanders.
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to
such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence
community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding
with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George
Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political
actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian
actors who would like to undermine Putin.
To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016
US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the
US election is quite another. "
This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute
the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia,
Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism
can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.
In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no
question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and
now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling.
Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is
made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians,
full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double
standard?
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing
the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made
use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions
for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.
Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing
about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once
enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium
One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.
November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty
laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.
So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of
doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the
Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed
Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.
But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were
complicit in the misdeeds.
We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the
Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.
We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.
We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to
believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.
What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is
of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying
Russians for smear documents! America First!
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump.
Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others
have all lied.
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't.
The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would
allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things
to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him
in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?
Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely
smeared the Trump team?
Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both
received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.
Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate
if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier
relied on collaboration with Russian officials.
Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller,
participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security
violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw
the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and
stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.
In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates
the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured
email server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously
wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime
Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama
administration covering up lawlessness.
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government
emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial
relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate
that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well
so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and
put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:
"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."
In the same interview:
"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign,
reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."
Did everybody catch that?
In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic
political opponent.
But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent.
I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in
its entire 10-year existence.
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email
server on which she did all of her State Department business.
But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations
to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.
Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.
But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something
seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign
government, you have some screws lose.
Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal
offence.
The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC ,
and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.
Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side
can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that
the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power
and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?
But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing
that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is
going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"
If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client
privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press,
Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks
maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.
Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.
The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation,
allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that
makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the
claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this
blighted nation for the next four years.
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt
to accuse one and defend the other is futile."
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think
that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"
I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental.
Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's
pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in
the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.
The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other.
They have them both in their pocket.
Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed
cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real
or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?
In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal
commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.
BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted
to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs
a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.
"... What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this? ..."
"... Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup. ..."
"... There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe. ..."
"... They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it. ..."
"... What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements." ..."
"... Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned. ..."
"... It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence. ..."
"... Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent? ..."
"... I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations. ..."
"... Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing! ..."
"... I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation. ..."
"... Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations. ..."
"... On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory. ..."
"... You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for? ..."
"... And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions. ..."
"... You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future? ..."
"... It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy ..."
"... Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so? ..."
"... All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans. ..."
"... What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″ ..."
"... if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa. ..."
A NATO supporter criticized Russia's President Vladimir Putin for Russia's Ukraine policy, on
October 19th, at the Valdai Discussion Club's annual meeting in Sochi, and Putin fired back with
his most detailed statement to-date, describing the overthrow in February 2014 of Ukraine's democratically
elected President Viktor Yanukovych, as having been a "coup" by the West, especially by the EU (which
he blamed for it, rather than blame the US).
Asle Toje, a Norwegian supporter of the NATO anti-Russian military alliance, had raised this subject
when he asked Putin
:
What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia.
It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become
semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this?
Putin replied:
Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive
– I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European
Commission, the situation went as far as a coup.
And "Yats" Yatsenyuk got the post, which was the appointment as Prime
Minister, because Obama wanted the rabidly anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko to win Ukraine's Presidency
in an election, so as to be able to describe the change-of-government as being 'democratic' i.e.,
'elected', not imposed (as was the appointment of "Yats"). However, Tymoshenko had too much of a
public reputation as being a US agent (and
grifter
), for her to win; and, so, Petro Poroshenko won the 'election' instead.
It was an 'election' in
all of the majority Ukrainian-speaking areas of Ukraine, but without allowing to vote the populations
in many of the majority Russian-speaking regions, where the man whom Obama overthrew, Yanukovych,
had won by over 75% of the votes, in the last democratic election in Ukraine, which was the Presidential
election in 2010 -- the final election in which Ukrainians in all parts of the country voted. Although
Poroshenko was anti-Russian, he wasn't nearly as anti-Russian as was Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk was Tymoshenko's
subordinate, and he had been selected by Nuland because the Obama Administration were thinking that
after the Presidential election, Yats would hand off the government to Tymoshenko, who led Yats's
Party.
Furthermore, in Nuland's instruction to the
Ambassador in Kiev, she said
"F -- k the EU" , because
the EU aristocracies weren't nearly as eager to conquer Russia as the US aristocracy are; the EU
aristocracies had wanted
Vitaly Klitschko to head Ukraine; Klitschko wasn't rabidly anti-Russian , like Tymoshenko and
Yatsenyuk were. Putin knew this -- he knew that the coup was done by the US, not by the EU.
There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media
– and all of Europe.
They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties,
and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its
reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought
about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed
seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it.
What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are
the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document,
an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon,
and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please,
put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections."
They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup
instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements.
However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements,
and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully
aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements.
Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements."
Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position
to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of
the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President
of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise
in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately.
Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will
strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned.
It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position.
Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority
languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this
regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There
is silence.
Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite
who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent.
Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian
people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping
silent?
Putin was appealing for the EU to become neutral on the Ukrainian matter, not for the US Government
to do so, because Putin recognized that the US Government wants to conquer Russia and
took Ukraine in order to
advance that goal, whereas many in the EU want instead to have peace and trade with Russia and aren't
so eager to invade. Putin has given up on
America, whose Government is -- along with Ukraine and Canada -- the only defender of nazism (i.e.,
of racist fascism), at the U.N. But he knows that if he blames the coup on the US Government,
this would make more difficult any possible efforts by the EU to move away from the US toward neutrality,
because such an accusation against the US Government would only unify NATO, not break it up. He might
be able to pick off a few EU members, to move toward neutrality and away from the NATO goal of ultimately
invading Russia, but this can work only if he plays down the real power-contest, the contest between
the US Government, whose goal is to conquer Russia , versus the Russian Government, whose goal
is to remain a free and independent nation -- to protect its national sovereignty. The reason Putin
blames the EU instead of the US is thus tactical. Especially interesting is that he says "This is
not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling
authorities. But why are you keeping silent?" He is there making his appeal to anti-nazi Europeans,
for them to break away from today's pro-nazi US regime. He is saying: Speak out against it; publicly
separate yourselves from it. Then, he said:
I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily
our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel
is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former
president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this.
However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is
essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately,
Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations.
Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president
asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just
amazing!
He refers there to "the Kiev authorities," instead of to the Washington authorities, because he
knows that the Europeans he's addressing are aware that Ukraine is now a vassal-nation of the US
He knows that they know what he knows, on this. Then, he really does address, not the rulers of Ukraine,
but instead the people of Ukraine, when he says:
I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the
overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people
as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation.
Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this
either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not
on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations.
Numerous polls have shown that many Ukrainians do feel "brotherly" toward Russians; he is trying
to appeal to these people, to seek a restoration of that previous alliance: Russia with Ukraine's
anti -nazis, instead of America with Ukraine's pro -nazis.
The pro-NATO Asle Toje could have interjected a retort to what Putin was saying, but kept entirely
quiet, perhaps because he knew that if he objected to any of what Putin said there, then Putin would
have had a terrific opportunity to respond by hinting at the real role that NATO (i.e., the US) was
playing in Ukraine, the nazi role there, such as by perhaps alluding to the nazi American Victoria
Nuland's famous "F -- k the EU!" statement, which she said when she gave the instruction, on 4 February
2014, for the next
Government of Ukraine to be led by Ukraine's
rabidly anti-Russian
nazis .
Hamid Karzai, the former ruler of Afghanistan (or at least of Kabul), was also one of the participants
at this conference, and he spoke about his country's long history of being a pawn in the ancient
aristocratic "Great Game" of aristocracies waging wars of conquest in order to establish international
empires and grab lands from each other. Then, he commented specifically about the role that America's
seizure of Ukraine in 2014 had played in the latest stage of the Great Game:
On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government
when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy
and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union,
and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was
one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural
relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment
and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this
region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the
Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia
did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true?
1954. So it was part of Russian territory.
His point about "if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against
America, what would America do?" was merely rhetorical, because in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis,
the US already had shown what the US would do if Russia were to place missiles on or near America's
borders: the US would launch a nuclear war against Russia. For some reason, Americans felt that that
response -- threatening World War III -- was justified, by America, then, in 1962, but somehow don't
feel that it would be a justified response, by Russia, now, when the shoe is on the other foot and
even more so than it had been back in 1962 (because Ukraine is right on Russia's border).
But, of course, it would be justified even more in the present instance, because
conquest of Russia became, in 2006, America's all-but-official strategic-policy goal, replacing the
former reliance (by both sides) upon the strategic-policy peace-maintenance goal, "Mutually Assured
Destruction" (or "MAD") , which was nuclear weapons being maintained in order to avoid a WW III,
instead of to 'win' a WW III (such as it has been for the US ever since 2006). Russia still believes
in MAD, but America is now 'going for the gold', of 'victory'. This was implicitly the US and NATO
policy
ever since 24 February 1990 , but it became, since 2006, overtly the US and NATO objective, called
"Nuclear Primacy," meaning the ability of the US to win a nuclear conflict against Russia -- to conquer
Russia.
The recent (October 19th) statement by Putin was the most extensive that he has yet presented
on the Ukrainian matter, but it's not the only statement he has made on this subject:
A year earlier than this latest Valdi discussion, Putin had said,
on 12 October 2016 ,
at the 8th annual investment forum VTB Capital "Russia is Calling!" seeking foreign investments in
Russia:
You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine.
Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood
behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although
it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was
ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for?
And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking
population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea,
to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian
policy and the imposition of sanctions.
You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation
of the Minsk agreements.
On that occasion, because he was responding then to a question which had been raised by Rick Boucher,
a former member of the US Congress, and now a partner in a law firm, Putin had been more direct,
by his saying, "We did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our
American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition,
brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power." But he was ambiguous as regards whether America
simply "stood behind this," or instead actually "brought [the situation in Ukraine] to an unconstitutional
way of changing power [i.e., to a coup there]." In any case, Boucher, too, had no response recorded
there, to Putin's statement.
Vagueness in political speech is the norm; it's seen everywhere; and wherever it is encountered,
tactical reasons are commonly being exemplified.
Still earlier, on 23 May 2014, just a few months after America's coup, Putin took part in the
plenary session of the 18th St Petersburg International Economic Forum,
and said in response
to a question from CNBC's Geoff Cutmore:
President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came
next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a
coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which
tools from the past or the future?
It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations
because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The
civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych
agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be
in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised,
keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy
Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported
the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes,
but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so?
All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied
it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was
before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent
English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for
consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were
no consultations. Nothing but slogans.
What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think?
The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found
out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell
us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure
is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may
end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex
stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s
not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″
if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where
people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still
not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa.
He said this, against "The West," after the clear evidence that it had actually been the US regime
that did the coup, and that had hired local Ukrainian nazis to carry it out, was already public knowledge,
outside "The West."
On the front page of the New York Times on 23 October 2017 was a news-report about the
efforts by Republicans in the US Congress to focus on something else than the alleged Russiagate
manipulation of the 2016 US election, and about the efforts by congressional Democrats to focus only
on those allegations, and this front-page NYT story casually employed the phrase "the extraordinary
efforts of a hostile power to disrupt American democracy", as if that were already a proven fact,
instead of being the Democratic Party's incessant propaganda-line in order to 'explain' Hillary Clinton's
electoral defeat.
The US propaganda-media do things such as that, in order to whip up, to the maximum,
their audience's hatred of Russians, and especially of the Russian Government, and so to promote
the 'case' for war against Russia. Putin knows what the source of this march toward World War III
is, and that it's not in Europe.
It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship
to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia
and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky
myth, reports Robert Parry.
As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident
media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary
that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.
The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology
companies – under intense political pressure – to
unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers"
(with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then
stigmatize
that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using
major search engines.
For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but
the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively
the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient
truth.
Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European
publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of
the Magnitsky story.
The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei
Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance
found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.
However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over
the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels
and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed
to see the documentary.
Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William
Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials.
For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about
how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.
Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals
and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got
rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.
The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence
anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.
So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets
the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization
of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means
necessary.
This summer, Browder
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging
the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent
Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.
Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone
who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."
Magnitsky and Russia-gate
The Magnitsky controversy now has
merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled
to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump
campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.
Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's
account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, "
A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's
memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the
prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's
honesty.
Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition
of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's
accountants implicated in the tax fraud.
While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream
media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical
neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant
caught up in the scheme.
The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets –
also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should
anyone believe his other self-serving claims?
As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in
a recent article on
the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court
deposition in a related criminal case.
In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder
said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered:
"No."
Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer,"
all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.
The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation
of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with
$230 million in refunded taxes.
Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood,
the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits
the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods
so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they
get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting
the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.
Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and
make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming
evidence of his deceptions.
Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see
the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees.
We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass
media and elections.
Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere
that is full of "Russian trolls".
orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm
Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing
$75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously.
Begin here
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based
hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment
operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally
a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped
in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires
a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis.
Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through
Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era
St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz,
the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian
Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a
mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main
backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial
museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much
more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance
of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying
arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian
Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She
became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most
of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor
Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs.
During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian
journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky,
Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz
newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs
at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent
industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs
of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship,
or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as
$10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands
of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories
of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World
War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the
applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud
which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays
out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment
that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan
Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars
of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that
for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps
more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm
William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights
activist".
Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs:
themselves.
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish
corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am
Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist
Browder!
This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered
as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding
Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who
had not suffered in the Holocaust."
Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1.
If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.
Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although
I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.
Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.
United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling
that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.
Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does
not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England
and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.
In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York
because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."
Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because
there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the
threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.
The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors
in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.
Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against
him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary
source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.
Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!
Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in
congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts
in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.
Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant
They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.
@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed.
Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and
that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians
that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft
,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the
forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of
the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi
judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes
Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern
Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.
Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am
Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits
from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis
and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his
incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan
P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass
themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."
In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached,
Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.
Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and
is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all
that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid
goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death.
Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.
Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of
justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and
disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell
with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".
Exceptional my ***!
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am
and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail.
Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA
Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am
There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part
of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the
people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain
– when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse?
I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about
the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes
against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both
the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down
a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan
and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.
You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?
Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am
It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known
zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison
manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.
US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different
matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take
bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will
repeal the act.
Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does
a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has
banned the book but eBay has it, for now.
Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials?
Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow
the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't
we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last
year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?
This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and
Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is
a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America
should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion,
and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.
tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am
Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's
, was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa
did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran.
Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak
hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't
Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am
Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this
moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina,
but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of
this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil
rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning
to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political
parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place
some eighty years ago.
So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little
while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual,
whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just
go to Holland. Joe
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Tina-
I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country.
I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign
troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange
that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries'
citizens.
Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US
shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the
Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge
Russia (which they still want to do).
Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex,
please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in
this age of suppressed truth?
When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets
seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read
works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events
and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then
you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded
by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand
it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be
saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?)
succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and
awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.
anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am
algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant
but essential medicine.
In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school.
She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was
not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President
, cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin
claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and
jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public
funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !
Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am
Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't
either.
The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.
Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish
community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family
in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008,
Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in
Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks.
In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."
I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify
as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline
of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To
them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky
was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine
how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary
now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied,
the other you are force fed in Amerika.
David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."
"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful
comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek
to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims,
and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their
machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.
We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys
and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy
in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running
drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing
a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless
of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque
ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then
tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable
to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts
to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power
structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of
the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media
in Europe by the CIA
Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower
case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.
Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am
This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among
the first hits on google. (archive org.)
I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).
I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every
day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time
Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with
lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.
Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm
Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to
dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.
Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei
Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky
controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.
Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm
For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei
Nekrasov.
Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.
Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as
"Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you
make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent
comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.
From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."
I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when
the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.
ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to
protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles
on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest?
Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown?
Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in
the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat
is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where
to start. Have you any suggestions?
There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries.
A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers
oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything.
The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers.
The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control
what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative.
For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive
and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against
far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.
"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice,
was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys
Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm
This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:
From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's
lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):
Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:
Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never
went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.
There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like
a high school punk contrived it.
Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm
The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked
shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage,
and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control
the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find
the truth. Thank you very much for your work.
j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm
Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge
of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,
There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this
detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.
"... Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear disarmament agreements. ..."
"... One particularly interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs, and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge ..."
The conference contained no important developments or revelations, but it did raise some
very interesting questions. One of those questions centered around the quality of leadership in
Western democracies -- specifically in a state that does not hold up well in comparison with
the leadership of Russia or China. The West has maintained its leadership role through the
legitimacy of its democratic institutions. In both the United States and Europe, however, those
institutions appear to be crumbling as a result of deepening -- and perhaps irreconcilable --
cultural, racial and class differences, and a failure to address the issue of migration.
... ... ...
When one participant remarked that European leaders see the "ball in Russia's court" when it
comes to seeking a resolution of the Ukraine conflict under the terms of the Minsk agreement,
Putin remarked that Russia sees the situation differently. Russia believes the ball is in
the West's court when it comes to bringing the government in Kiev to negotiate an agreement
on autonomy with the Donbas, he said. Putin expressed no optimism about the situation and he
noted that the Ukrainian government was probably too weak and internally threatened to make a
deal.
... ... ...
On North Korea, Putin said that "we should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten
force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective. Whether someone likes or dislikes the North
Korean regime, we must not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a sovereign
state."
Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear
disarmament agreements. He went into considerable detail when accusing successive U.S.
administrations of violating the terms of both the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement and the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement of 1993. He also
noted that the United States, unlike Russia, had yet to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test
Ban Treaty. It was clear from his remarks that the Russian leadership is determined to maintain
rough nuclear parity with the United States and respond to whatever it sees as violations of
those agreements by the U.S. side.
In some ways, the most interesting thing about the conference regarding Russian-Western
relations was that most of the discussion was not about Russian-Western relations. Instead,
conference attendees focused on climate change, social inequality, technological change,
genetic engineering, globalization, migration and national identity. One particularly
interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs,
and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense
growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another
discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The
conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to
meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge
As a number of
participants (including myself) pointed out, compared with these existential threats to
existing states, the issues currently dividing Russia and the West are likely to seem to the
historians of the future (if there are any) so minor as to be almost insignificant. One hundred
years from now, our descendants are likely to look back on disputes over Crimea, the Donbas and
Syria with the same combination of incomprehension and contempt with which we regard the
European elites who went to war over geopolitical issues in 1914. They, too, failed to see that
the real threats to their comfortable, civilized world came from within their own societies.
Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and a senior fellow of
the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is author among other books of Ukraine and
Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry .
"... But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital. ..."
"... Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now? ..."
"... So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab ..."
"... There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was true." ..."
"... The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values" really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole". ..."
"... The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous analysis. ..."
The New
McCarthyite program of demonizing anyone and anything associated with Russia continues apace. A Soros-funded
think tank called European Values has put out a screed (no exaggeration, read the hyperventilating
tone of the "report") which has as its major aim chilling the participation of guest speakers on
RT, per its title,
The Kremlin's Platform for 'Useful Idiots' in the West .
This self-styled think tank posted a list of people who had appeared on RT on a series of its
shows since 2013. Despite its claims of being comprehensive, the former producer of the RT show Boom
Bust, Ed Harrison, quickly identified some names that were missing, and I am sure if he thought further,
he could come up with more.
The list is so lengthy and includes so many highly respected people that I doubt including will
hurt them in any way. But some were mighty annoyed anyhow:
I didn't read the list as carefully as I could (see
this spreadsheet , and notice it has lots of categories), plus my selection was admittedly personal.
These names caught my eye:
Anat Admati
Dan Alpert
Kofi Annan
John Authers
James Baker
Bruce Bartlett
Bill Black
Hans Blix
Russell Brand
Sherrod Brown
Pat Buchanan
Richard Borosage
Erin Brockovich
Pierce Brosnan
Helen Clark
Dick Cheney
Andrew Cockburn
William D. Cohan
Jeremy Corbyn
Russell Crowe
Ann Coulter
Satyajit Das
David Davies
Richard Dawkins
John Dean
Alan Dershowitz
Barry Eichengreen
Jesse Eisenger
Keith Ellison
Nigel Farage
Harrison Ford
Morgan Freeman
Malcolm Gladwell
Glenn Greenwald
Mikhail Gorbachev
Bob Graham
Amy Goodman
Germaine Greer
Tulsi Gabbard
Stephen Hawking
Seymour Hersh
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Mark Halperin
David Igantius
Laura Ingram
Jeremy Irons
Gary Johnson
Neil Kinnock
Naomi Klein
Jon (they spelled it John) Krakauer
Jesse Jackson
Kerry Kennedy
Les Leopold
Michael Lind
Chris Matthews
John Mauldin
Ralph Nader
Michelle Obama
Nomi Prins
Yasmin Qureshi
Barry Ritholtz
Dan Rather
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Robert Reich
Jim Rogers
Kevin Rudd
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Ryan
Bernie Sanders
Lee Sheppard
Ben Stein
Jill Stein
Gloria Steinem
Matt Taibbi
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Jean-Claude Trichet
Mike Tyson
Cenk Uygur
Dick Van Dyke
Yanis Varoufakis
Evangelos Venizelos
Denzel Washington
Marcy Wheeler
Oprah Winfrey
Bob Woodward
The irony here is that I appear to have been picked up for what were my last appearances on RT,
mainly on Ed Harrison's Boom Bust show. As much as I like Ed and enjoyed that the interviews were
six to ten minutes (leisurely by TV standards), I quit doing pretty much all TV (save Bill Moyers'
show) because it was a lot of work for little payoff. First, they tend to ask you to appear the same
day and spout off, which never works for me (I am too time stressed to drop everything and fit an
appearance into my schedule). Second, you have to do some research perp. Third, for the level of
TV I was invited to do, I would have to go to a remote studio. That means you do your own hair and
makeup. Women have to use specialized makeup for high def camera (different foundations, more like
paint primer, requires use of bronzers and blush, and hooker level eye liner). It takes 20 minutes
to do it if you don't screw up the liner. Even in studios (where the makeup artists do it and they
know the lighting, so they know were they can do less v. more), it's a bare minimum of ten minutes
for them, more like 15-20. Fourth, you have to transit time to and from the studio and you need to
get there at least 15 minutes before the "hit time".
So it's a minimum of a three hour time sink all in, which is longer than it takes to do a post.
And while readers liked seeing me on TV, I didn't get new readers this way. The audiences for the
shows to which I'd be invited were not all that large and overlapped heavily with my existing audience.
And as for the productiveness of this attack on RT, which no matter what you think of RT, is an
attack on the First Amendment. On one level, it won't dent any of the reputations of the individuals
named, since with so many prestigious names across such a wide range of positions, being on this
list is in practice meaningless. But it will still have a chilling effect on RT's ability to attract
guests, at least in the US. As Ed Harrison pointed out:
Even if we expose this move for the McCarthyism it is, the blacklist will still have its intended
impact by putting a chill on RT's ability to get guests. EVERYONE will think twice before appearing
on the network. The damage has been done.
And as Mark Ames confirmed:
But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people
away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with
media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital.
But the perverse bit is, that as John Helmer pointed out in previous reporting, and the the think
tank study confirmed, RT's audience in puny. So why should anyone care if it has no real reach? From
Helmer via e-mail, who has been blacklisted by RT for reporting on how it exaggerated the size of
its audience:
Rag picking is a sorry task, but occasionally there are gems to be salvaged [the screenshots
are from the think tank report]:
In short, this is evidence, again, of the self-sucking icecream. RT is an audience failure.
In order to earn its budget from the Kremlin, it used to rely on trickery in Nielsen and other
survey manipulation, fabricated data, bots, etc. For example, Nielsen told me in 2009, when I
investigated, that because RT places its service on hotel room televisions, the audience count
includes every guest who turns on the TV set in the hotel room. It apparently didn't occur this
moron to speak to Nielsen.
When I ran this story in Asia Times –
http://johnhelmer.net/black-hole-television-how-the-little-pigs-lie-to-the-big-bad-wolf/ –
[RT editor-in-chief Margarita] Simonyan issued a lawfirm libel threat until AT agreed to give
her a large interview space in which to damn everything I had done. Peter Lavelle, now the "anchor"
for RT's John McLaughlin-mimic show, telephoned because he was terrified Simonyan would realize
I had been talking to him by telephone and by email.
Nowadays, no trickery is needed. The USG, the US media, Pomerantz, Edward Lucas et al., all
do the job of promotion for RT – so Putin is convinced, and [Press Secretary Dmitry] Peskov grows
rich. Simonyan too.
So while this little hit piece on potential RT guests will probably be effective, at least in
the US, in hurting RT's ability to produce credible content, it will increase its appearance of effectiveness
and hence its funding. So this may not net out to be a negative and could still over time be a net
plus for RT.
And that's before we get to the fact that some individuals who don't like intimidation campaigns,
such as Russell Brand and Nicholas Nassim Taleb, having some sport with this, particularly since
many of the people on this list have much bigger megaphones than the think tank shooting at them.
Put it another way: this sort of report is not the product of a confident ruling class. It's far
too easy to blame a legitimacy crisis on outside agents when the fault lies in decades of neglecting
the most fundamental responsibility of leadership: that of making a serious effort to assure the
welfare of ordinary people. Even if one were to believe the barmy thesis that RT has damaged the
US body politic, it's because the the rot is so widespread that takes only a minuscule dose of PR
to further weaken the foundations.
I grew up in the era of Pravda/Tass, and you got used to the Soviet Premier winning with 99.43%
of the vote, and it was certainly news to me that the Russians had invented baseball, as they
claimed.
But that was the game then-the communists lied all the time, stupid fabrications not for the
audience beyond it's borders, it was strictly for domestic consumption. Hitting people over the
head with the same tales enough so it sunk in, so as to be truth.
Here in the west, we were by no means saintly, but by mostly being open about things, we were
leagues more truthful, in yet another aspect of the Bizarro World existence capitalism & communism
had with one another.
But that was then and this is now, and Fox seems to have taken the Pravda angle and gussied
it up so as to appeal to the masses, and despite so many other media outlets available to the
public (unlike in the USSR) their model worked to a charm, and now our Premier gets his news from
them and often repeats it verbatim.
We're in obviously an odd time, and a which hunt atmosphere is taking hold, witness the all
of the sudden issue with sexual harassment that's gone as far as including a President in his
90's in a wheelchair as the perps, along with the usual Hollywood types. Apparently everybody
seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of
their preying ilk now?
I'm confused; how does the Weinstein matter have anything to do with Yves' post?
I'd like to think that reports of women being assaulted and raped by a powerful Hollywood figure,
(and now male teenagers with the Spacey revelations) would be an important matter to report on
and bring to light.
To imply that such actions are being taken "Because it distracts the rubes from the root cause
of the elites' legitimacy crisis" seems flawed when the person being called out is considered
one of those elites.
Should those women continue to suffer in silence because the timing is inconvenient?
Just my opinion, but I think the point is to get everyone panic running, by whatever interest
point/shocking story might get them running. Once everyone is panic running, for whatever reason,
they can all be "herded" into the preferred corral/poltical conclusion by careful MSM media manipulation
– which has been used to get them running in the first place. imo.
Sexual harrasment/abuse is a serious issue, but it's not a new issue.
Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades,
why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?
I'm assuming it's because one can't throw rocks in glass houses. Or flip that around. Rather
they are throwing rocks in glass houses and to show their even handedness, they're taking aim
at themselves as well. I guess it establishes their bonafides when it comes to throwing rocks.
This also manifests itself when language is invoked about various parties being irredeemable:
see Clinton's comments on deplorables. Or various parties not being repentant: see media comments
on John Kelly regarding his comments on Wilson.
Geezis F.C. Guantanamo is going to have to be updated and expanded to the whole state of North
Dakota to accommodate the quarantine of those thusly infected – while the crack PropOrNot Medical
Unit develops its GetYourMindRight vaccine.
I must say that I wouldn't care to be associated with a Cheney or a Kennedy. But I wouldn't
mind being associated with Tulsi Gabbard (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
But seriously, this hysterical anti-Russian stuff reminds me that many Americans must be completely
indifferent to the rest of the world thinking them crooks and fools.
Boris Johnson must be part of this mob as he too has attacked people that appeared on RT. He
attacked Labour MPs for appearing on this program recently (
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4709175/boris-johnson-slams-rt-then-finds-out-his-dad-went-on-air/
) only to discover too late that not only were several Tory MPs also on this program but also
recently his dad as well – do'h!
For those unaware of who Boris Johnson is and what he looks like, imagine Donald Trump but with
unkempt hair instead of styled hair.
The corporate funded Democrats and Republicans are playing a two-man con game against the American
people. One runs up the deficits with tax cuts to the rich, the other cuts social spending to
balance the books, and both are in favour of endless war.
When people start to take notice – "Look! Over there! A Russian conspiracy!!"
My approach is simple – look at who is ginning up this anti-Russia hysteria, and know that
they are the enemy. Corrupt scum who lie as a matter of habit.
I use a cheap digital antenna to get free, over-the-air television broadcasts which includes
RT along with about 40 other channels. No one is counting us as viewers. But shhh, don't tell
the Gov't many of us are enjoying these RT programs, I mean Russian propaganda, or they'll shut
it down.
RT may have a small audience, but however small, that audience is still bigger for people like
Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, et. al. than what corporate media provides them. Many have been blacked
out and blackballed.
The above list includes people who, for the most part, have not been blacked out and have other
avenues besides RT to reach the masses on tv. Sadly, for many of our most outspoken patriots who
dare speak truth to power, RT is the last refuge for those scoundrels.
If you have a Kodi video streaming system you can get an RT app for it. The software is downloadable
for free and can run on an older computer if the latter is capable of handling it. Or you can
get a Raspberry Pi 3 for less than a Franklin and run it on that with the also free LibreELEC
operating system, which is a stripped down Linux for Kodi.
This whole Russia goes to the fact that only 4 countries on this Earth can give 'murica the
middle finger and get away with it: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Now, of these, only China and Russia are a real threat. However, you can scratch China off
the list because they are our "frenemy with benefits". They are the spouse that, if you divorce
them, you will pay dearly (make a lot of our stuff, holds a lot of our debt). So, as Johnnie Taylor
had sung "its cheaper to keep her".
So that leaves Russia. They are they only entity in the world where you can justify the Gerald
Ford supercarriers at $10B a pop. Justify that white elephant called the F35 (with $180 billion
in cost overruns and counting). Spend billions revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes
on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab. But you can
with Russia
Yes, Virginia, this is why you can't have nice things because of those darn Rooskies!
So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers
at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list
goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab
Exactly so.
Presidential candidates who were recipients of defense industry money, and how much they received
--
I teach journalism as an adjunct professor, and one of my former students is now an on-camera
newscaster at RT. When she was first offered the job, she phoned me with some vague concern about
RT being funded by the Russian government. I told her not to hesitate, to take the job. I said
simply judge the organization by its content -- and the content then as now is entirely in-line
with the power-confronting material seen on this website, The Intercept, the Jimmy Dore Show and
dozens of other progressive news sources in the US.
Now Neo–McCarthyism has set in. She emailed me a few weeks ago -- horrified that the State
Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign lobbyists. I couldn't
get over the hypocrisy and irony of it: the US government -- beneficiary of a massive sycophantic
domestic corporate media empire -- going after one small voice in the wilderness, hammer and tong,
because of its source of funding, not because of the nature of its reporting. I know from regular
contact with my former student that RT's "agenda" isn't dictated from the Kremlin. There's no
need whatever for that. A vast corrupt and self-serving American political class provides any
semi-conscious journalist with more than enough stories to pursue every day of the week.
So far as I know, the BBC hasn't been officially designated a foreign propaganda mouthpiece,
which (albeit in more "legal" phrasing) RT America has. The truly scary part is the same piece
of "legalness" is so vaguely worded with regard to what defines a foreign propaganda mouthpiece
any alternative medium could acquire the same label.
It's like the FBI now labeling any African American who dares protest a "Black identity extremist."
the State Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign
lobbyists
To be way too blunt, this kind of pushing local interests in restraint of foreign trade is
just the reason ISDS courts are required. When local sovereignty is being applied unfairly, even
local courts can't be trusted.
It's also why Canadians can be so antsy about foreign content in media.
Do you know whether the State Department will require past guests on RT from the list above
to register as foreign lobbyists, as well? That possibility brings a smile to my face.
The browder plague grandson tells us the Russians are bad, grandpa helped crazy joe McCarthy
make the argument that talking to Russia was bad, by his wondrous service as mister communist
party usa
As for RT and censorship, Gilbert Doctorow has been talking about how Russia's neocon and other
opponents are frequent guests on Russian television because their outlandish claims are considered
good entertainment. Maybe Russians, those snowbound chess masters, are just smarter than Americans.
Next to Trump Putin seems like some sort of Einstein.
There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda
told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was
true."
What the Soviets said about the Civil Rights movement.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I had a run-in with Ed Harrison a few years ago that shows
how small RT's audience likely is. During a time I was spending too much time on finance twitter,
I noticed a very familiar face from a twitter avatar walking down a very quiet residential street
early one morning. As I got closer I felt the need to confirm this, since I was worried I was
seeing things (happens when you're a neurotic insomniac!). Turns it out it was Ed and he was,
it seemed to me, very unaccustomed to being recognized on the street and almost certainly took
my curiosity to be hostile. People who are recognized on the street have ways of dealing with
it, Ed really seemed to not have figured those out, suggesting to me that being on RT didn't interfere
with his being anonymous! So much for 'Russian propaganda'!
"A Soros-funded think tank called European Values. This is what we are up against; Ass-backwards,
widderschynnes, black magic. Harvey Weinstein at the January 2017 Women's March in Park City,
Utah.
"At least he went with a gray beanie instead of the de rigeur head wear."
The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented
organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values"
really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole".
I learned this simple rule of thumb from the NC Commentariat. The "truth" is often merely the
diametric opposite; hiding in plain sight. Turn upside down and inside out, and the pig-Latin
code is easily deciphered! Voilà!
I had a skim through the article. Overall it strikes me as a particularly acute case of projection.
There also seems to be a significant lack of good faith (as you'd expect).
The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout
that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes
me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this
basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous
analysis.
Late on Friday, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most
news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the
2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the
military in 2017.
Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017." This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department
of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for
military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing
operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that
we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that,
among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in
countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries' use of unmanned aerial vehicles."
Much of the balance of Obama's statement blamed the GOP for Guantanamo's continued operation
and warned that "unless the Congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history,"
Obama said. Obama also said Congress failed to use the bill to reduce wasteful overhead (like
perhaps massive F-35 cost overruns?) or modernize military health care, which he said would
exacerbate budget pressures facing the military in the years ahead.
But while the passage of the NDAA - and the funding of the US military - was hardly a
surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense
Authortization Act.
Recall that as
we reported in early June , "a bill to implement the U.S.' very own de facto Ministry of
Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress . As with any legislation attempting to dodge the
public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a
further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate
information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a
"whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign
disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and
stability."
Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in
March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era
government propaganda battles. "These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast
and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and
other efforts to influence key audiences and populations," Portman explained, adding that while
the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides
enormous funding for its news organization, RT.
"Surprisingly," Portman continued, "there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or
department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of
whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation."
Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such
discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State
with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the
Broadcasting Board of Governors to "establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,"
which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and -- in true dystopic manner --
'develop and disseminate' " fact-based narratives " to counter effrontery propaganda.
In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was already
planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label "fake news."
* * *
Fast forward to
December 8, when the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " passed in the Senate,
quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference
Report.
And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering
Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law.
* * *
Here is the
full statement issued by the
generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the singing into law of a bill that
further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which
hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or
site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the
government.
Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against
Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their
Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American
allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations has been
signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference
Report. The bipartisan bill, which was
introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United
States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an
interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize
counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill
also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside
government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage
existing expertise and empower our allies overseas to defend themselves from foreign
manipulation. It will also help foster a free and vibrant press and civil society overseas,
which is critical to ensuring our allies have access to truthful information and inoculating
people against foreign propaganda campaigns.
"Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and disinformation against us and our allies, and
so far the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel," Portman said. "But today, the United
States has taken a critical step towards confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign
propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas. With
this bill now law, we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no
longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on. I am confident that,
with the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against us, our
allies, and our interests will fail."
" The use of propaganda to undermine democracy has hit a new low. But now we are finally in
a position to confront this threat head on and get out the truth. By building up independent,
objective journalism in places like eastern Europe, we can start to fight back by exposing
these fake narratives and empowering local communities to protect themselves," said Murphy.
"I'm proud that our bill was signed into law, and I look forward to working with Senator
Portman to make sure these tools and new resources are effectively used to get out the
truth."
NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two
main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of
foreign disinformation from our enemies:
The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering THE
foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages against us and our allies by our enemies .
The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center
to include state actors like Russia and China as well as non-state actors. The Center will be
led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department
of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other
relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government
initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies and
proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create
more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to
help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society
organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts
outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in
foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the
Center's role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government
into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private
sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
* * *
And so, with the
likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate "Russian Propaganda"
with "fake news" (despite admitting
after the fact their own report was essentially "fake "), while the US media has
indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the
official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also "fake news"
and thus falls under the "Russian propaganda" umbrella, the scene is now set for the US
government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be
"foreign propaganda."
Just like that, the US Ministry of Truth is officially born.
So, the purpose of this shit law is to "develop[ ] a whole-of-government strategy for
countering. . . propaganda and disinformation by building up independent, objective
journalism. . .
The disinformation and lying in this article starts early with this comment:
"These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media
capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other
efforts to influence key audiences and populations," Portman explained, adding that while
the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides
enormous funding for its news organization, RT.
Below is a more balanced article that actually defines the "vast sums of money." It
turns out that RT spends only a fraction of what is spent by the U.S. BBG (Broadcasting
Board of Governors) system.
"The BBG currently oversees the VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting,
taxpayer-funded federal broadcasting entities, as well as three grantee organizations:
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East
Broadcasting Networks (MBN). The networks under the BBG control reach a weekly global
audience of 226 million people, broadcasting in 100 countries and 61 languages."
and
But unlike the BBG's outlets, RT operates in compliance with the laws of the countries
it broadcasts to.
and
It should be noted that an annual BBG budget is roughly $780 million a year ($778 in
for fiscal year 2017). For comparison, the Russian government allocated just over $300
million to RT ((including its English, Spanish, Arabic television channels, as well as
French and German web-based projects) in the 2016 federal budget. MIA Rossiya Segodnya,
the parent company of Sputnik News, operates on a budget of $75 million, including both
domestic and foreign media -- 10 times less than the BBG.
and
Perhaps, the gist of the problem is not the laws regulating the effort or agencies in
place and their budgets but rather the quality of information and its truthfulness to
earn the trust of the audience. So far, the US has been definitely losing the fight for
people's hearts and minds.
__________________
The U.S. media was co-opted, especially after Bill Clinton's Tellecommunication act of
1996. This act allowed the major media to combine with cross-directorates. Today's U.S.
media is controlled by six large corporations.
And yes, Zion owns or controls this media complex. Even Reuters, which tends to be the
main feed, is Jewish owned.
Oligarchy in U.S. wants to own the money power and control the narrative (by owning
the press), to then take rents - for perptual Oligarchy. It is a feedback loop.
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created
by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent
Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security
complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia
has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to
have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary
and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of
further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative
circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked
Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver
Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their
naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin
Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US
foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US
unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and
of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington
convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO
bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO
provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more
reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential
election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and
the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence
Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her
remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the
Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic
that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be
recalled."
She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this
document.
"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not
know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more
going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses,"
she told CBS' Face the Nation.
She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC,
should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that
Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged
coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.
On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign
and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered
in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week,
citing sources familiar with the matter.
The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising
relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published
online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of
deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free
Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The
alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was
taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the
expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The
DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and
reported $66,500 for research consulting.
Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence
Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its
investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something
should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US
president put it.
"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so
much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."
Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of
investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....
Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion
between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one
who really colluded with Russia.
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states
surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about
fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case
For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as
possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law .
. . "
Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since
Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent,
unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.
Yes, Trump's following
that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in
American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate
that condemnation.
http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/
I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many
people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came
over the transom:
So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter
is Alexej Kowaljow
, a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian
!", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available
to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that
Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.
I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote
the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and
then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate
handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.
(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery
Here's
the
section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going
to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.
Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map
Russia
"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump
tweeted
in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from
Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S.
election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that
intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as
Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about
the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle
have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who
consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter
Page worked in Russia and
maintains ties there.
During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate
Jack Kingston
told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.
According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income.
"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump
Jr.
told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website
of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Back to map .
Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump?
Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any
reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?]
make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that
means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."
Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):
For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30
years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although
Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest
hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.
Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the
Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump
Vodka was discontinued.
Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos,
golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture?
No? Case closed, then.
(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy
Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election
The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns
The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account
of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.
Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy,"
said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their
new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.
Now Kowaljow:
The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections,
published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name
of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced
that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.
Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky
– ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the
head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is
neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing
populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the
US by means of "gravitational weapons".
If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it
would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.
The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both
so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly
consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin?
Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.
And now to the two questions.
(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?
Kowaljow:
But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption
that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary
of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President
of the US is to be discredited appears strange.
Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible,
you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational,
and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st
and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies
are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed
Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it
up, but that's another narrative.)
(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?
Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody
loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:
But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant
details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected
president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they
also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.
This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots
of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person.
The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented
in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave
bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant
career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide
television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two
prostitutes.
Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for
whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or
the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally
wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a
rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.
Conclusion
It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump
transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist
Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:
The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
Ditto, regulations.
Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them.
Charters, for example.
Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation
And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which
Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich
with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy
of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.
Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were
all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility
voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing
unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who
downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material
on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.
Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home
this week.
The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material
on Mr Trump.
The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".
Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published
as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and
his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.
... ... ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer
- rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.
However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was
"probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.
He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier
had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".
Donald J. Tump Twit
@realDonaldTrump
James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally
circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!
... ... ...
Obama briefing
The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans
opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.
Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However,
the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.
Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President
Obama last week.
But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have
been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.
Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community
last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking
the dossier.
So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence
the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke
Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks
supporters for 'kind messages'
The former MI6 agent behind the
controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused
an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.
Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company
Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his
dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.
"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here,"
he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages
and support over the last few weeks."
Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said
he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making
any further statements or comments at this time."
Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded
with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified
sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow
in 2013.
It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton
hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential
visit.
Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin
also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed
Russia did not collect
kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.
Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not
been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside
his family home in Surrey.
Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends.
The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered
in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea,
probably on Putin's orders .
As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning,
quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his
case officer, friends said.
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched
an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive
magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims
of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.
Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges
against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has
yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against
the President.
The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine,
which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative
that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures
in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence
team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump
they launched after his November 2016 election victory.
Brennan set up a task force to look into
the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered
a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John
McCain.
The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant
attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the
campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative
report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the
talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented
by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached
by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false,
and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."
Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,
"For
the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence
would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against
Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking
narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."
He{Suvorov, Russian press secretary) pointed out that when picking the right car for
their country's Interior Ministry, Slovaks are "reasonably guided by its characteristics and
advantages over other analogues in the market."
"And it turns out that the Russian-made Tigr is safer, more reliable and cheaper than
American, German, French and Swiss armored cars," he said.
Suvorov added that Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the
Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment.
They refer to various arguments, including "the factor of [anti-Russian] sanctions,"
according to Suvorov.
A major purpose of the sanctions appears to be an effort to protect Western markets and
not just "punishment" of Russia. With the availability of highly competitive Russian civil
aircraft, it would be easy to surmise that the sanctions have an overt commercial goal.
The west is all about free trade as long as they have the advantage. When faced with a
serious competitor making superior products it throws a tantrum and puts up trade barriers. I
guess the WTO does nothing to protect Russia's interests.
The west is great with free trade so long as it gets to make the rules but not follow them.
Trump's current hard line at the NAFTA talks is exemplary – he wants to increase
American content in everything and create more opportunity for American business without any
quid pro quo whatever. Really he figures he is in a no-lose situation; he is opposed
to NAFTA anyway, as a businessman, and so he figures he will drive such a hard bargain that
if Mexico and Canada walk away in disgust, he got what he wanted. If they capitulate, there
will still be NAFTA but the deck will be so stacked in America's favour that the other two
parties will basically just be draining their resources into the USA.
Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation
happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton
campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire
the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the
Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy
Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier
– which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically
suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of
dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Sound familiar?
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public
until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this
would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been
stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the
Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias -
$5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance
records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since
Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when
an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The
Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been
identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized
that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start,
WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was
primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion.
Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected
compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist
his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear
how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI
and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has
now been made public.
Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or
FBI should immediately release who paid for it.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to
disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony
last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.
The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may
never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering
intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele
was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from
the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian
entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.
Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January.
John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion
GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do
known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of
Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.
It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the
dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along
and did it... for the clicks.
So to summarize:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on
Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources,
both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media
and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just
a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the
Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear
business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at
Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story,
Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources)
are wrong."
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back
vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI
Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in
funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately
means Hillary Clinton herself.
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc
Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not
surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may
themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.
Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and
ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ
,
Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert
Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan
grandstanding you imagine.
Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably
reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British
former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited
stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really
connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were
consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The
resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an
FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to
trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.
We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a
vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief
James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian
intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.
OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI
when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a
Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But
now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers
Congress.
Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After
the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear
establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought
to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.
Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the
surface and which as of today is
being investigated by the House :
The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian
entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill
Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary
Clinton's State Department.
Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery
and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of
Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation
This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010
transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the
scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice
Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its
significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.
As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is
that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."
Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all:
former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:
The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly
embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if
just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake
intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their
impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more
consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot
behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.
Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and
distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political
spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the
media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod
Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr.
Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe
remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the
Russia meddling matter.
The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first -
their time will come. It's the FBI:
By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the
FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it
bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much
to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then,
in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency
We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this...
and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.
Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were
complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the
forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women"
phenomena
to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve
their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and
the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President
Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.
Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the
research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI
and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before
that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria
Jones/AP)
Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear
how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles
of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of
Fusion GPS's role.
"... Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections. ..."
"... US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it. ..."
The US and their European Atlanticist minions are trapped by their own propaganda and
ideological prejudices.
Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't
make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential
threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential
elections.
US and Western propaganda is so inconsistent and contradictory. However, Americans
and their European Atlanticist minions are so myopic – they don't notice it!
It's hilarious, US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent
and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than
that of a goldfish is immune to it.
There are some data that Facebook is strategically important, as it can capable of influences
election by influencing younger, more stupid and more democratic-leaning part of electorate
(older people usually hate Fecebook with it voyeurism
and exhibitionism tendencies and culture) . The question is how many operative are imbedded
in this company by intelligence services of, say, the USA, GB, Russia and China. If we assume
that Fecebook was partially US intelligence services project, or at least widely used by NSA and
may be other intelligence agencies (Snowden revelations) then the answer is clear. And as it's
really tremendously more convent to work with Facebook accounts then to catch transmission at ISP
level then discovering Russian trolls was done long ago and BTW not by Facebook security
department.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia "causing divisiveness" is a common theme of American politicians and media. Never explained is WHY? What does Russia have to gain by Americans being divided? Do they think the Russians are so juvenile? Or are the Americans the childish ones? ..."
"... CNN on Oct. 12 claimed that Russia uses YouTube, Tumblr and the Pokemon Go mobile game "to exploit racial tensions and sow discord among Americans," while the Washington Post ..."
"... At one point the Post ..."
"... However, at other times the Post ..."
"... We've been told, moreover, that Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos's team "had searched extensively for evidence of foreign purchases of political advertising but had come up short." ..."
"... Politico, a Democratic-Party-leaning journal, reports that Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Democrat Bernie Sanders, and Republican Donald Trump. ..."
"... More fun and games: the Department of Homeland Security in September notified Virginia and 20 other states about Russian efforts to hack their election systems in 2016. ..."
"... Earlier this year, U.K. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson declared, apparently without embarrassment: "We have no evidence the Russians are actually involved in trying to undermine our democratic processes at the moment. We don't actually have that evidence. But what we do have is plenty of evidence that the Russians are capable of doing that." ..."
"... Perhaps the main reason for questioning charges of Russian interference in the 2016 US election is that Russian President Putin would have been risking that the expected winner, Hillary Clinton, would have been handed a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. But that's just being logical and rational, two qualities Cold War II has no more use for than Cold War I did. ..."
"... "Moscow seeks to promote a multi-polar world predicated on the principles of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in other states' internal affairs, the primacy of the United Nations, and a careful balance of power preventing one state or group of states from dominating the international order. To support these great power ambitions, Moscow has sought to build a robust military able to project power, add credibility to Russian diplomacy, and ensure that Russian interests can no longer be summarily dismissed without consequence. Russia also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values." ..."
"... Great power aspirations, indeed. How dare those Russkis promote a multi-polar world, respect for state sovereignty, non-interference, the United Nations, and balance of power? It's all straight out of Lenin's playbook, 100th anniversary edition. ..."
"... As to the U.S. promoting democracy around the world Oh right, that's what the Pentagon calls Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Philippines, Honduras, Turkey, et al. ..."
A
big part of the Russia-gate hysteria is to accuse Russia of spreading U.S. dissension via
Internet "trolling," but that's just one more wild exaggeration among many, as William Blum
describes at Anti-Empire Report.
Webster's dictionary: troll – verb: To fish by running a baited line behind a
moving boat; noun: A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore.
Russian Internet trolls are trying to stir up even more controversy over National Football
League players crouching on one knee ("taking a "knee") during the national anthem, said Sen.
James Lankford (R-Okla.), warning that the United States should expect such divisive efforts to
escalate in the next election.
"We watched even this weekend," Lankford said, "the Russians and their troll farms, and
their Internet folks, start hash-tagging out 'take a knee' and also hash-tagging out 'Boycott
NFL'." The Russians' goal, he said, was "to try to raise the noise level in America to try to
make a big issue, an even bigger issue as they're trying to just push divisiveness in the
country. We've continued to be able to see that. We will see that again in our election
time."
Russia "causing divisiveness" is a common theme of American politicians and media. Never
explained is WHY? What does Russia have to gain by Americans being divided? Do they think the
Russians are so juvenile? Or are the Americans the childish ones?
CNN on Oct. 12 claimed that Russia uses YouTube, Tumblr and the Pokemon Go mobile game
"to exploit racial tensions and sow discord among Americans," while the Washington
Post (Oct. 12) reported that "content generated by Russian operatives was not aimed only
at influencing the election. Many of the posts and ads intended to divide Americans over
hot-button issues such as immigration or race."
Russia! Russia! Russia!
Imagine the American public being divided over immigration and race How could that be
possible without Russian trolls?
The Post (Oct. 9) reported that the Russian trolling operation resides "in a large
gray building north of the St. Petersburg city center There, young people work 12-hour shifts
and make between $800 and $1,000 a month, "an attractive wage for former students and young
people. It is impossible to get inside the building, and there are multiple entrances, making
it hard to tell who is a troll and who is not."
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest are amongst the many Internet sites that we are
told have been overrun by Russian trolls. The last named is a site that specializes in home
decor, fashion and recipes. Have the Russians gone mad? Or are the American accusations the
kind of stuff that is usually called – dare I say it? – "propaganda"?
"How much the trolls affected the outcome of the U.S. election is unclear," the
Post had to admit. "But their omnipresence is evident on Twitter and in the comments
section of publications like the Washington Post , where trolls can be found
criticizing news stories, lambasting other posters and accusing one another of being trolls."
Are you starting to chuckle?
At one point the Post reported that Facebook "identified more than 3000
advertisements purchased in a Russian-orchestrated campaign to influence the American public's
views and exploit divisions around contentious issues." And Congressional investigators said
that some of the Facebook ad purchases had "obvious Russian fingerprints, including Russian
addresses and payments made in rubles," and that "accounts traced to a shadowy Russian Internet
company had purchased at least $100,000 in ads during the 2016 election season."
However, at other times the Post told us that Facebook had pointed out that
"most of the ads made no explicit reference in favor of Trump or Clinton," and that some ads
were purchased after the election.
We've been told, moreover, that Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos's team "had
searched extensively for evidence of foreign purchases of political advertising but had come up
short."
In any event, we have to wonder: What political savvy concerning American elections and
voters do the Russians have that the Democratic and Republican parties don't have?
I have read numerous references to these ads but have yet to come across a single one that
quotes the exact wording of even one advertisement. Is that not odd?
To add to the oddness, in yet another Washington Post article (Sept. 28) we are
informed that "some of the ads promoted African American rights groups, including Black Lives
Matter, while others suggested those same groups posed a growing political threat, according to
people familiar with the material."
Politico, a Democratic-Party-leaning journal, reports that Russian-funded Facebook ads
backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Democrat Bernie Sanders, and Republican Donald
Trump.
Who and what is behind these peculiar goings-on?
More fun and games: the Department of Homeland Security in September notified Virginia
and 20 other states about Russian efforts to hack their election systems in 2016.
Earlier this year, U.K. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson declared, apparently without
embarrassment: "We have no evidence the Russians are actually involved in trying to undermine
our democratic processes at the moment. We don't actually have that evidence. But what we do
have is plenty of evidence that the Russians are capable of doing that."
At a Sept. 27 Congressional hearing, FBI Director Christopher Wray joined this proud chorus,
testifying: "One of the things we know is that the Russians and Russian state actors are trying
to influence other elections in other countries." Mr. Wray forgot to name any of the other
countries and the assembled Congressmembers forgot to ask him for any names.
Perhaps the main reason for questioning charges of Russian interference in the 2016 US
election is that Russian President Putin would have been risking that the expected winner,
Hillary Clinton, would have been handed a personal reason to take revenge on him and his
country. But that's just being logical and rational, two qualities Cold War II has no more use
for than Cold War I did.
Know Thine Enemy
The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report in June entitled "Russia:
Military Power: Building a military to support great power aspirations." Here's an excerpt:
"Moscow seeks to promote a multi-polar world predicated on the principles of respect for
state sovereignty and non-interference in other states' internal affairs, the primacy of the
United Nations, and a careful balance of power preventing one state or group of states from
dominating the international order. To support these great power ambitions, Moscow has sought
to build a robust military able to project power, add credibility to Russian diplomacy, and
ensure that Russian interests can no longer be summarily dismissed without consequence. Russia
also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and
what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values."
Great power aspirations, indeed. How dare those Russkis promote a multi-polar world,
respect for state sovereignty, non-interference, the United Nations, and balance of power? It's
all straight out of Lenin's playbook, 100th anniversary edition.
As to the U.S. promoting democracy around the world Oh right, that's what the Pentagon
calls Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Philippines, Honduras, Turkey, et al.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not
disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in
Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people
who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often
happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example
to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly
went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible
that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to
distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda
against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic
ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal
states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the
reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as
once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the
historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.
In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech "
think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian
government-funded RT television network.
Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank?
Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank
listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA
director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent
Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.
I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently
anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"
It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the
ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials,
when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.
So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are
well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who
appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to
the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders
include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European
Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the
Prague-based "League of Human Rights."
Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political
"enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and
Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in
the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the
Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took
exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech
"European Values" think tank.
Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically
considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?
"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the
marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US
citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their
own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.
This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign
policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and
then Congress
appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."
That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our
objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How
anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of
tyranny?
The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We
must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your
generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight
for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd,
almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine
Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.
With the U.S. government offering tens of
millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not
surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have
"basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."
I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet
has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly
personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think
of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook
(compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of
Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing
through the Internet.
Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's
population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of
course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.
After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely
to get a piece of
the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily
Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most
responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from
many other sources.
If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your
"research"
cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some
links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few
of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and
shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion
monthly users.)
Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms
on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a
sewer."
But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts
purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27
billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having
little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect
Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of
thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential
campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions,
debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual
electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in
politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a
carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver
meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."
Puppies and Pokemon
And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these
"Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to
photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister
motive behind the "puppies" page.
Similarly, CNN went wild over its own
"discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who
found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would
name the Pokémon after the victims.
"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have
been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had
happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:
"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the
contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or,
indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the
prizes."
So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people"
about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American
democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald
Trump.
A New York Times article
on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more
perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.
It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are
home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to
resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.
"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week,
they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes,
fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."
There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money
for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news
articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish
Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.
The Truth About Fake News
Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last
November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the
Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran
a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times
tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student
using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or
not.
The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push
stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing
anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found
no Russian connection.
The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on
mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus
advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly
profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim
here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.
But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure
readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a
story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.
This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story
plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to
Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be
true.
But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of
alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even
flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.
There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps
turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential
or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over
Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor
changes in the Republican platform).
Saying 'False' Is 'True'
And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to
defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in
referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our
election."
That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence
agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments
of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this
topic.
Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence
community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as
"hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment"
blaming the Russians while acknowledging
a lack of actual evidence .
In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence
that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In
"stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments
without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the
groupthink.
So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016
and later in 2017 when she repeated
it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it
would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the
fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated
Press ran corrections.
In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence –
testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the
17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false
statement from being described for what it was: false.
Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an
arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of
mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and
what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed
"false."
So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes
"true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google
ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn
you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.
TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am
Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author,
conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the
Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral
degeneracy. Wadya think?
Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!
Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm
I second the motion!
Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm
"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and
only pure-grain alcohol?"
richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am
And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian
banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.
This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm
The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they
know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K
on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about
0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average
nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many
individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.
The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling
about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they
are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.
The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one
can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they
believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize
oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no
advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.
JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they
are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is
obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is
completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack
of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.
As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation
to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not.
Historians will judge them harshly.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am
JWalters –
Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are
spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now
are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk
show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If
these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form
of madness.
anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm
"Historians will judge them harshly."
The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and
Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.
Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society
they belong to.
Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism,
[email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the
many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic
Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and
college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the
US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller)
and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.
Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled
Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had
no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took
her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up.
How could you have missed it?
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm
He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces"
against Clinton, versus her accusations.
I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has
the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we
hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made
to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by
people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay
alert.
A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging
about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook
to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which
condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda
organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in
the category of "Better safe."
So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our
beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people
who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching
in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm
Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption
by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy,
and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.
Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great
danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat."
Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary,
consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and
conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.
Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the
Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.
From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:
Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars."
Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am
Abe –
Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann
Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely
because of the draft.
Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K.
public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany
in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in
Jail for his activities to oppose the war.
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am
Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to
war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome"
situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire
(enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with
Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am
Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and
it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his
contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in
World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.
(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!
T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am
the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war
criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm
Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your
escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide
your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and
Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted
state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany
our censored news. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm
Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press.
Read this .
"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a
narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public
is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay
the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is
pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two
weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an
idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech
across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of
traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these
platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or
less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia
message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a
collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad
Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his
narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially
the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and
free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."
Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..
When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal
deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White
House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side
stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is
the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.
Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for
what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party
platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after
you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan
politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves
our attention, and what we do all should do about it.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Joe Tedesky –
Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me
that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices
and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in
this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other
things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries
like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four
billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries
probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it
much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.
And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials
sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues
are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we
do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property
and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about
Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive
properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia,
U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.
And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and
other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and
his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other
corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption
is the norm.
Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up
in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the
high interest loans.
This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking
about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly
breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young
bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as
much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for
your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade
right here at home.
I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world
they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar
would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the
occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy,
nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being
corrupt.
I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into
Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned
around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling
off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles
altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?
Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have
many a good conversation. Joe
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am
Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian
businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other
Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery
case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is
Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton
Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the
trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few
of them too.
Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has
been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may
be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now,
probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm
While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important
comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think
of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible
thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.
Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to
NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going
for the Media Knockout'.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am
Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews
into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to
Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one
right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically
said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in
construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave
Germany and come to Palestine?"
I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am
Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of
Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its
result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."
I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist
trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.
I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist.
It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can
provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.
Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay.
Joe
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am
Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am
Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts
getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm
Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against
Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.
Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm
I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation.
Joe
dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm
Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda
on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:
How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World
Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(
Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am
I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of
keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect
us from the terrists they created.
Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am
Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.
David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm
I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W.
Bush's administration".
The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.
But I'll let it slide.
Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm
I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm
betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of
China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with
the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du
jour.
D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding
the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices.
Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.
anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm
zio-alert
Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm
The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:
When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H.
Fabian" pops up to insist:
And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US
government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big
oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.
If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for
their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is
bigger than the one you would like to paint.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am
WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe".
Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual
citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone?
Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so
why do we? I will wait for your reply.
WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Curious.
I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and
Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot
of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)
As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there
are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the
interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different
from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of?
We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of
each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the
big picture?
No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of
the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I
also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the
sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming
some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to
label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow
leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and
Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)
Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am
WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a
few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several,
world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under
Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to
break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire.
Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire,
threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in
City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and
obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am
No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to
zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire
problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to
their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war
anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in
other problems.
WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.
anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am
Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding
Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British
aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am
The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.
Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.
The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag
"anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that
gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.
Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary
purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli
military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities
The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the
Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south
Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further
Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush
administration for its backing of Israel.
A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started
circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and
who are dual American-Israeli citizens."
With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with
headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration."
Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration,
27 House members and 13 senators.
The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the
misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or
multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and
is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire,
engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is
that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to
which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been
revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.
The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic
Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to
grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and
the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a
religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews
or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not
entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of
Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).
Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their
descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants
Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli
citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in
Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of
Return if the applicant so desires.
A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval
to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but
not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious
disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving
in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship
unless they explicitly request not to.
In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.
Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray
Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian
territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the
manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really
works".
"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example
that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of
time."
The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big
thing".
"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They
are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.
Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.
Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and
"always for the benefit of Israel".
Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert
country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am
Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very
clearly.
I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the
largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at
that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist
Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on
the World events.
Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is
a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this
country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes
wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special
chosen people?
WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would
like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of
proportion.
When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well
versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!
With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I,
on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to
get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In
reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be
right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims
(whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong
either.
Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to
cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who
(he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as
being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the
most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of
clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right
and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder
can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world
filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for
power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested
special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes
far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem
will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that
lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled
with so much wrong.
Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over –
what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church
Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)
Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm
Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper
perspective" on Israel.
For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30,
2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal
50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967
War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"
A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement
movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.
Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli
propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned
Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.
Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist
settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".
The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of
settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides
humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set
out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the
1948 Arab–Israeli War.
The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949
Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent
borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice
Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the
Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."
Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The
Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international
border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the
Israel–Lebanon border.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies
refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring
countries.
According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities
inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is
forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank
almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.
Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States
Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory is overblown.
The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the
built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.
This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately
disingenuous.
The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land
Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements
create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the
West Bank.
Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And
almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has
given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area"
of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing
it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."
In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build
infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the
entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various
barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.
Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to
be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly
impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.
The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to
describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that
the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether
international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.
Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of
effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the
military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see:
HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).
The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war.
Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian
territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.
Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is
that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.
Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in
the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is
occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding
3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and
for the Israeli economy."
Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change
the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not
Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the
land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Real world solutions:
An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.
What can be done now?
United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of
Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor
the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple
ethnic cleansing operations.
In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.
Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing
views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with
weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am
Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are
Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?
This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at
work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public
criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates
of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the
Senate. See
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2
wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm
though.Boy.
Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers,
so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft
drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox
News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are
already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by
140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel
they are insulated from critical analysis.
dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
jon stewart?WTF?
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm
Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV,
having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of
humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points
of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political
content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.
fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm
EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc
(DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign
countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy,
studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more
suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American
governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is
or was a difference between the candidates..
Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of
Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned
about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists,
white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges,
vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the
list.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe
Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am
I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.
I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.
Only my mind is left. For some more years.
(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."
Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?
Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am
Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the
garbage they are promoting.
Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I
also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.
We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player
who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven
year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That
young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great
number 21 Roberto Clemente.
Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care
Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to
watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe
Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm
I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1
favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father
took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for
a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have
loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.
On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com
story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open
case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this
matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so
I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and
such on the old TV.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm
Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think
fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over
into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right
field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth
or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side,
where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third.
The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a
pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television
cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our
school lunch money.
About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another
Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for
Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe
mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm
All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to
the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein
affair.
The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political
establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of
the population believes what it sees in the MSM.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am
mark-
I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in
the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well
in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20
percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false
flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to
Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and
viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are
turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all
costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day
that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and
interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to
that.
Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical
instrument "viola."
Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?
Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you
have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American.
Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be
one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was
exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there
isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a
problem, Houston.
Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm
If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k
spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who
gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall
the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way
too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard
placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I
must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any
qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the
Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would
risk starting WWIII doing it.
Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm
A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.
No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing
just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is
perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and
concerned about immorality than Americans.
This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one
am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their
feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by
yourself!
Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37 https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/
It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's
more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new
evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the
whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense.
The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon
Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am
Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from
mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!
Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am
Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of
Politifact is invigorating.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am
Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian
bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been
the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton
was Secretary of State.
Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:
Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her
supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.
Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am
Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!
Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more
quality items.
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am
Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that.
However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to
seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police
– I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant
involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue
the investigation.
Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during
1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about
the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery
and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am
Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become
taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from
the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more,
than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's
death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of
those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer
the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.
The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I
think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a
way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world
is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's
power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.
Okay Dave. Joe
Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am
Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these
cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the
dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true
picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no
independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely
do.
It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real
issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected
officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues,
had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these
days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless
Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any
thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country
or the World.
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of
concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's
good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here.
Joe
Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any
investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?
Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am
I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file.
Joe
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am
Hours ago:
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant
Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's
investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company
that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa
has learned.
In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer
representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary
informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he
provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players
from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]
FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One,
which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required
approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change
of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the
national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was
chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."
This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch
or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?
Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am
Very well written article
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am
The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of
intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for
his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie
Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't
be bothered reading it anymore.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am
Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute
corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.
He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey,
Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are
the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with
Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter,
while virtually ignoring the former.
Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion
in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than
10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News
of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have
probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles
Times.
However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the
Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los
Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.
I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our
house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well
into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don
Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just
about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the
Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies
and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana
Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.
backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am
Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories
whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled
Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If
this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to
take our minds off of it.
The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the
rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and
call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.
Cheers, Dave.
Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am
"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It
never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York
Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by
omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan
demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union
Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the
entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like
9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on
youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the
website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national
history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in
hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.
In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda
methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't
happening.'
Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am
Lee Francis –
yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel
lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very
passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he
sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.
It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin
the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox,
are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they
seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is
beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked,
but with corruption rampant, who knows?
JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am
The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of
those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that
they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a
straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously
phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat
voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are
still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach
the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Good one!
Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There
are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video
editor :)
mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm
The Rulers fear the internet.
Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The
Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed
I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making
fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical
year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US
presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with
negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the
Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.
Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm
I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to
the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own
choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it,
like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing
philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere
proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with
this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its
extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an
independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled
to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at
your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who
dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the
screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms
of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is
Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it
stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May
(assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start
making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"
And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to
its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which
reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the
service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is
certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny.
The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have
already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their
people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy
hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly
privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand
otherwise, vociferously and en masse.
Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm
Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the
actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played
his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.
Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with
populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and
everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the
power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular
population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each
category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the
pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and
peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.
Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war
crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.
Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm
For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will
reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate
entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the
lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to
find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military
into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the
behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle
East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign
lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is
why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the
'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax
payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own
country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys'
article.
GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm
If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg
times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.
Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am
I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to
affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to
look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.
Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?
But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake
media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be
the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.
Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all
tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does
not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what
hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was
leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of
faith in democracy, she said."
Democrats had urged her to be silent after
her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part
in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted
she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.
Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting
on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a
precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."
She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie
is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because
of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts
of our society."
She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not
believe in free trade.
In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging
an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and
present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.
"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted
attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division
in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists,
even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."
She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known,
but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from
Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10
million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.
Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was
a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such
cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still
playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she
said.
"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are
in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism
and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."
The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary
and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on
Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to
disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.
"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian
intelligence," Clinton
told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .
Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her
2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian
government.
Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge
against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his
authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.
"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine
America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of
that."
WikiLeaks received
thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen
by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to
the US election.
Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day –
7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland
security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to
interfere in the election.
Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of
the Access Hollywood tape.
"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information,
promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response
to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some
communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood
Access tape."
"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is
either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda
objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.
"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for
the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of
transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political
ledger."
Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state
parties".
In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with
Hillary Clinton".
"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing
glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.
"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."
Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)
There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not
just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely.
Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu
500 People shot in Las Vegas and 500 People missing in California fires at the same time all
seems pretty bland compared to Stephanie Leigh Ruhle American combat journalist, and her highly
captivating conspiracy theories that those Russian Thugs could possibly have had some how colluded
with that Man Trump to defeat the First Woman US President in history Hillary.
This is not the death of the media, just the US media. RT is fantastic and does not make me
yell violent obscenities at the TV like the CFR programming.
I watch RTon the internet every day and used to watch it on TV before Time warner dropped it,
and I found it very reliable and objective. I recall when one of the top journalists there abby
Martin severely criticized and denounced the Russian government for accepting Crimea back into
Russia, yet she was not fired even though she often criticized that action.
Many programs had
American journalists. And news involving Russia, while generally non-critical, usually was confined
to presenting the Russian view on something, which is a legitimate thing to do if you are informing
people.
I never heard anyone on RT who spread rumors or made unfounded accusations like I hear
on MSNBC every day. and no one on RT denied that they were founded by the Russian government,
they did not hide this from their listeners. Americans I believe are the most propagandized people
on the earth because they believe the news they get is factually reported by an independent "free"
press.
My fellow Americans while they brag about their independence nevertheless are easily stampeded
into becoming a lynch mob.
Modern propaganda was invented in the US by Edward Bernays. It was copied by the Nazi's Joseph
Goebbels who had every book Bernays ever wrote in his library.
It just occurred to me that the perfect Halloween decoration this year would be a Russian flag.
That is, unless someone comes out with a Zombie Putin, or Dracula Putin...
When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people
trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles
that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress
is calling on Facebook and Twitter to
disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence
the election in favor of Trump.
But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies
on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics
remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to
them the world over, often without ever realizing it.
Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research,
Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social
media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S.,
Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.
It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are
enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination
of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to
be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.
By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual
support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable,
common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard,
argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you
are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."
On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.
The U.S.: Rise of the bots
America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online
than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.
In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a "
watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."
Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots
or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before
the election, fake news was shared
as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described
specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.
While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots
multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall,
pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at
key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers
-- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly
retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.
One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the
Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And
it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump
received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.
Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton
spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally
focused digital ads.
But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one
famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called
"super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the
Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.
"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012,"
a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are
now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of
this paradigm shift."
"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns
heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."
The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and
then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson
said.
The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors,
while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist
(he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial
disclosure, he held shares worth as much as
$5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee
has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.
But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the
US government hired a public relations firm to develop a "
persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political
purposes.
The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL),
has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The
Washington Post
reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.
There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts
that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger
-- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.
Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California
Computer Science department, even
suggests
the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized
wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by
reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel
Macron in this year's French presidential election.
Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state
propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and
independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support
a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment.
Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference
last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be
supported by our committee. "
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret
information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his
co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together
Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to
produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the
intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by
pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's
been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed
more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively
spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry,
going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both
classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified
assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see
whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the
Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at
the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference
for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see,
the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors'
lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and
preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts
-- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters
of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and
psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be
taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and
because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't
think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence
report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The
report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd
realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had
avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the
former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who
contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent
putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and,
in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have
found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr
added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and
they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with
putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The
Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews,
comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without
producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The
Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the
investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was
involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on
the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor,
Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The
committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now,
I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages"
there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news?
Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all,
they've hyped every other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so
they decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of
Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the
interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come
up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no
proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016
elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't
really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't
the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man
innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking
matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why
they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened.
Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan
rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the
hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to
his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by
Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax
to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC
emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the
Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly
admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor
has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a
credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has
produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a
foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not
hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose
excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the
hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation
titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly
obliterates the central claims of the ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence
(in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not
involved in the DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and
credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that
has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or
evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really
conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a
witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide
the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the
prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an
emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and
threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one
massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now
consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO)
devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It
is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory
of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American
people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report
that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the
horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and
Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How
dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?
But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so
emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the
establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are
they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of
those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing
will happen.
All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much
reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media
campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the
biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria
helping?
Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things
start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow
division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing.
This is really embarrassing.
Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump
administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This
mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama
administration.
If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I
can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.
I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion
narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.
I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so
that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and
probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an
unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.
Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies
from the usual suspects.
I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always
deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little
originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's
all BS from the get-go.
Note the date.:
THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so
amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter
with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at
least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat
beyond the facts.
-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 –
PDF
This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib
Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits
comments entirely).
While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along
with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that
MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word,
"insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!
If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I
will apologize.
The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all
over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring
and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let
alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.
I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important
things but utu has a better take on it.
it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with
having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with
Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]
I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on
getting on yer knees to deliver it!
PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's
take.)
We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so
many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no
evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of
nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a
theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off
Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there
actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty
by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the
manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians,
and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence
agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent,
the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is
an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the
publics perception of Russia.
Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.
This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were
hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.
In the end,
Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about
so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it.
The American public will get the report, which it deserves.
Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The
headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be
hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the
Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless
pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.
Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued
more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still
publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions,
it is no longer important, just political theater.
The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical
weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they
wanted. Mission accomplished.
Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten
flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its
blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts
out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards
accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully
buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40
years.
If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst
possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can
absolutely count on.
Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows;
the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power
they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.
So what ?
Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics:
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great
service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth
reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks
for that.
Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and
zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of
dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.
"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take
its natural course."
Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few
things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):
having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State
Dept
expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries
(everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails,
accounts, etc
spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise
operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be
in US
laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God
forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.
None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but
it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that
'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.
What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions
to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This
is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart
enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic
level of rationality after this fiasco?
Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How
does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this
level of nonsense?
Multiple wars ravage the Middle East. Turkey has inserted itself into the middle of most of
these regional conflicts and ended up a loser.
Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has intervened and formed alliances with a
rogue's gallery of imperial warlords, terrorists-mercenaries, Zionist expansionists, feudal
potentates and obscure tribal chiefs, with disastrous economic, political and military
consequences for the Turkish nation.
In this paper we will discuss Turkey's domestic and foreign policies and behavior over the
past decade. We will conclude with lessons for middle range powers, which might help in future
decisions
President Erdogan's Domestic Disasters
Throughout the early decade of the 21st century, Erdoğan made a strategic alliance with
an influential semi-clandestine organization led by a cult-leading cleric, Fethullah
Gülen, who was conveniently self-exiled in the US and under the protection of the US
intelligence apparatus. This marriage of convenience was formed in order to weaken the leftist,
secular and Ataturk nationalist influenced opposition. Armed with the Gülenists' treasure
trove of forged documents, Erdoğan purged the military of its Ataturk nationalist
leadership. He proceeded to marginalize the secular Republican Party and repressed leftist
trade union, social movements and prominent academics, journalists, writers and student
activists. With support from the Gülenists movement, 'Hizmet' , Erdoğan
celebrated his successes and won multiple election and re-election victories!
Initially, Erdoğan failed to recognize that the Gülenists/Hizmet operated as a
subversive political organization, which permeated the state apparatus through a dense network
of bureaucratic, military, judicial, police, and civil society organizations, with ties to the
US military/CIA and friendly relations with Israeli policy makers.
By 2013, Erdoğan felt intense pressure from the Gülenists/Hizmet which sought to
discredit and oust his regime by revealing multi-million dollar corrupt practices involving him
and his family in a 'Turquoise Color Revolution' – remake of other 'regime changes'.
Having discovered his internal vulnerability, Erdoğan moved to curtail the power and
reach of the Gülenists/Hizmet controlled media. He was not yet prepared to deal with the
immense scope and depth of the elite links to Gülenists/Hizmet. A Gülenists-led
military coup was launched in July 2016, with the tacit support of the US military stationed in
Turkey. This was foiled by a major popular mobilization with the support of the armed
forces.
Erdoğan then moved to thoroughly purge the followers of Hizmet from the military,
public administration, schools, business, the press and public and private institutions. He
extended his purge to include secular and nationalist political leaders who had always opposed
the Gülenists and their attempted coup d'état.
As a result of the coup attempt and the subsequent purge, Erdoğan weakened and
fractured every aspect of the state and civil society. Erdoğan ended up securing control
of a weakened state with a degraded business, educational and cultural world.
The Gülenists coup was authored and led by its supremo Fethullah Gülen, ensconced
in his 'secret' private estate in the United States. Clearly the US was implicated in the coup
and they rejected Erdoğan's demands to extradite him.
Erdoğan's subservience to the US/NATO leadership have undermined his attempts to strike
at the roots of the coup and its internal and external power structure. The US/NATO military
bases still operate in Turkey and retain influence over its military.
In the aftermath of the coup, the decline of Gülenist influence in the economy
contributed to economic reversals in investments and growth. The purge of the military and
civil society reduced Turkey's military preparedness and alienated the democratic electorate.
Erdoğan had already nearly lost his bid to the presidency after his earlier purges in
2014.
Erdoğan's Foreign Policy Disasters
Perversity is when a ruler weakens its military and represses its citizens and launches a
series of risky foreign adventures: This is exactly what Erdoğan has done over the past
several years.
First Erdoğan backed a terrorist uprising in Syria, providing arms, recruiting overseas
'volunteers' and providing them with unrestricted passage across the Turkish border. Many of
the terrorists proceeded to join forces with Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds in establishing
military bases on Ankara's borders.
Secondly, Erdoğan ran a scurrilous electoral campaign among the millions of ethnic
Turks living in Germany – violating that powerful nation's sovereignty. As a result,
Erdoğan increased tensions and animosity with what had been its closest ally in its quest
for EU membership – effectively terminating the process.
Thirdly, Erdoğan backed NATO's invasion and bombing of Libya, killing President
Gadhafi, who had been an independent voice, capable of serving as a possible ally against
imperial intervention in North Africa.
Fourthly, Erdoğan backed the brief government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim
Brotherhood after its electoral victory in 2012 following the 'Arab Spring' uprising in Egypt
of 2011. He backed a formula similar to his own Turkish policy of excluding the secular,
democratic opposition. This led to a bloody US-backed military coup led by General Abdel Sisi
in July 2013 – a lesson not lost on Erdoğan.
Fifth, Erdoğan's de facto friendly relations with Israel – despite
verbal criticism – in the face of Tel Aviv's assassination of nine non-violent Turkish
protestors trying to break the starvation blockade of Gaza – undermined relations with
the pro-Palestine Arab world and nationalists in Turkey.
Sixth, Erdoğan developed lucrative ties with Iraqi Kurd dictator-warlord, Masoud
Barzani, facilitating the flow of oil to Israel. Erdoğan's own illicit oil deals with
Barzani strengthened the cause of Kurdish separatism and exposed the widespread corruption of
Erdoğan's family dealings.
Seventh, Erdoğan provoked military tensions with Russia by shooting down a warplane in
Syria. This led to an economic boycott, which reduced export earnings, devastated the tourism
sector and added Moscow to his list of adversaries, (Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, US,
Germany, Hezbollah and Iran).
Eighth, Erdoğan backed the tiny oil-state of Qatar, sending supplies and soldiers to
oppose a threat from Saudi Arabia, the other royal oil statelets and Egypt, US allies and
followers.
Despite his many disastrous domestic and foreign policies, Erdoğan learned nothing and
forgot nothing. When the Israelis backed the Iraqi Kurds in organizing an independence
'referendum' aiming to ultimately annex the rich oil fields of Northern Iraq, Erdoğan took
no action despite this threat to Turkish national security. He merely made verbal threats to
cut off the Kurd's access to Ankara's oil pipelines. He took no concrete steps. Erdoğan
preferred to pocket transit taxes from the oil, antagonizing Iraq and Syria and strengthening
the links between Kurdish Iraq and its secessionist counterparts in Syria and Turkey.
Because of Erdoğan failure to close down the US military base following its support of
the Gülenist-led coup, the Turkish army is still heavily under US influence, opening the
possibility of another uprising.
Erdoğan's lip-service to 'nationalism' has served mainly as a political tool to repress
domestic democratic political parties and trade unions and the Kurdish and Alevi communities.
Erdoğan's initial support and subsequent opposition to the jihadi terrorist groups seeking
to oust the secular-nationalist government in Damascus has caused 'blowback' – with ISIS
terrorist cells bombing civilian targets Istanbul and Ankara with mass casualties.
Conclusion
Erdoğan's unprincipled, opportunistic and pro-imperialist NATO alliance demonstrates
the inability of an aspiring regional power to find a niche in the US Empire. Erdoğan
believed that being a loyal 'ally' of the US would protect Turkey from a coup d'état. He
failed to realize that he had become a disposable pawn in US plans to instill more servile
rulers (like the Gülenist) in the Middle East.
Erdoğan's belief that Turkey's collaboration with the US to overthrow Syria's President
Bashar Assad would lead to a successful territorial grab of Northern Syria: instead
Erdoğan ended up serving the US-backed Syrian Kurds tied to the Turkish Kurds .By working
to break up Syria and destroy its state and government, Erdoğan strengthened Kurdish cross
border expansionism.
Erdoğan failed to recognize the most basic rule of imperial policy: There are no
permanent allies there are only permanent interests. Erdoğan thought Turkey would be
'rewarded' by acting as a US surrogate with a share of power, wealth and territory in the
Middle East. Instead, as a 'normal' imperial power, the US used Turkey when it was convenient
and would then dispose of Erdoğan – like a used condom.
Anti-imperialism is not just an ideal and moral/ethical principle – it is a realistic
approach to safeguarding sovereignty, democratic politics and meaningful alliances.
(Republished from The James Petras Website by
permission of author or representative)
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Why he calls its lunatic. It's pretty rations. Russia now represent an obstacle for global
neoliberal empire and being the weakest link in Russia-China alliance it is only logical to
attack it first
Notable quotes:
"... Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy. ..."
"... McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie. ..."
"... In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help. ..."
"... "Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. ..."
"... Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13. ..."
"... "British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870." ..."
Joseph
Alsop (lead image, centre) and George Kennan (right) started the kind of Russia-hating in
Washington which, today, President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as
a novelty that cannot last for long.
Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a
bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with
bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington
Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh
history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in
Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices,
cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It
needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the
enemy.
McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or
disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall
Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the
Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its
sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class
bow-tie.
Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated
each other much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better
then than the Kremlin does now.
Gregg Herken's The Georgetown
Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other
State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours
in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip
Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city
of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 --
was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop,
had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Connecticut.
They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got
together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As
the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in
which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.
Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes
of the history have reacted by calling
Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating
and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday
soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is
a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a
system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of
working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately,
required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was
inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check.
'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same
since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media
business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.
The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work
as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain
Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of
Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly
repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."
That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by
the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did
not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the
threat from Moscow." That line appeared in
print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgment. How
monumentally mistaken is obvious now.
In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the
history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date
of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State
Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in
the declassified original
. Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's
1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in
Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of
judgment, and pleas for help.
The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with
the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were
correctly and fully informed."
Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional
that was -- not because of Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that
they ran upwards from foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet
secretaries. Herken doesn't think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101,
sounding more sceptical of overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in
power to direct schemes of what we call state terrorism today.
Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner
died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his
subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile,
Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.
What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters
and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of
Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and
killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.
In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window
of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push.
Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the
Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were
normalities.
Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press
reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides
– Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so
much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself
today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and
repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's
madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.
So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the
amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what
they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the
arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only
in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200
newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is
recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred
Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did
Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air
Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile
strength.
In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not
less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting
Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned,
outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation,
attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the
Russians.
This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when
Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues,
"Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out
of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own
scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own
increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."
From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly
manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops
of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and
Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump
organization.
It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its
journalists were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just
as mad – and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State
publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had
written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.
If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters
don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham
sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of
taking shotguns to their heads.
Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State
Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the
Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency,
sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring
history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the
Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue
repeating itself.
Wisner has a son named Frank, who is a pro-Kosovo Albanian/anti-Serb/anti-Russian
fiend. Kennan later became a responsibly more calming voice on Russia. Concerning the Capitol Hill establishment -
Nonetheless, I remember that Kennan was a strong opponent against NATO expansion in the
90's, after the collapse of the USSR. I think there were good reasons to make an alliance
against the spread of communism, but after this ended in Europe, of course, NATO should have
dissolved just like the Warsaw Pact.
Wages are low in Estonia compared to Sweden. So the Swedish corporations will move some
factories to Estonia to make more money. That is the "powerhouse". The Estonians will not see
much to the money. But they get what is wages in Estonia of course.
"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took
power in Russia Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the
so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said
he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of
Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the
beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," ~ Professor Michael Jabara
Carley of the University of Montreal
"Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 --
1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western
hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian
Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.
Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as
the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic
France in 1812-13.
"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth
century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion,
in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as
1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de
Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."
"Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian
threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin
Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire
to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is
undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric
Warfare."
"Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai
Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and
blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian
Empire in his book "Russia and Europe."
https://sputniknews.com/pol...
Its incredible one country can sit half the planet away "not allowing" another country "to
spread its influence" to its neighbours.
When this is the case, this country´s culture is pervercy and sick.
The deal may certainly be seen as a purely strategic/economic measure to stabilize the oil
market – with no geopolitical overtones. And yet OPEC is geared to become a brand new
animal – with Russia and Saudi Arabia de facto deciding where the global oil markets
go, and then telling the other OPEC players. It's open to question what Iran, Algeria,
Nigeria, Venezuela, among others, will have to say about this. The barely disguised aim is to
bring oil prices up to a band of $60-75 a barrel by the middle of next year. Certainly a good
deal for the Aramco IPO.
There were a rash of other deals clinched in Moscow – such as Aramco and the Russian
Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) $1 billion fund for oil-services projects in Russia, plus
another $1 billion for a technology fund.
Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in
best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent
investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that
was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator
Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:
We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.
Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information
in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator
Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report
that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed
with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy.
Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee
has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:
Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising
250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000
documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57
hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents
and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.
It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions,
then what's the point?
Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified
in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.
From the Intelligence Community Assessment:
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the
US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have
high confidence in these judgments.
This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge
is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity.
There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based
on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing
our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in
this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think
this gibberish should be taken seriously.
Here's more from the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her
since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because
he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.
More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think.
The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is
it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength
seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it
would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the
point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.
To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed
to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:
"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said
Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting
the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition
to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate
for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's
review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official
in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans
in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)
That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250
hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence
that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case
not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people
testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with
the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point
of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare
moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:
"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into
all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial
findings because we haven't any."
Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's
not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't
the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every
other part of this story?
Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they
decided to scrub the story altogether?
But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia
meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all
the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness
testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence
of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.
So here's a question for critical minded readers:
If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections,
then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense,
does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall
on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty
or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?
Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter,
because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.
That's why they have excluded
any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would
the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder,
Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he
also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President
Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the
Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what
actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange
been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?
Don't bet on it.
What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted
that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been
contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who
can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.
Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence
that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's
work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern
been invited to testify?
How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent
report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory,
as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises
Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the
ICA.
Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the
Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the
form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the
DNC email scandal.
Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible
witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated
the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?
Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence
that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.
So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting
an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?
It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public
with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as
a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that
has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous
and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon
to Vladivostok.
Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative
is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics
perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum
Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives.
The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.
Russia's Foreign Ministry does not rule out ordering the United States to cut its diplomatic
staff in Russia to 300 people or below, the RIA news agency cited Georgy Borisenko, the head of
the ministry's North America Department, as saying on Wednesday.
In July, Moscow ordered the United States to cut the number of its diplomatic and technical
staff working in Russia by around 60 percent, to 455, part of a diplomatic row.
The figure of 455 was meant to mirror the total number of Russian diplomats working in the
United States, but also included Russian nationals working at the United Nations in New York,
Borisenko told the agency.
"The fact that in the summer we took into account the people working for Russia's mission at
the UN, this was good will," Borisenko told RIA.
"If they haven't appreciated this, we have the full right to reduce ... the number of U.S.
diplomats," he said, saying Moscow could stop taking Russian U.N. staff into account when
calculating what parity between the two countries meant.
"In this case, the number of American personnel in Russia should decline to a level of 300
or below."
(Reporting ; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests
that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the
question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political
party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid
for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of
the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a
political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised
on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these
emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make
any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where
I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic
Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their
policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of
color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union
jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour.
It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the
1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of
the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation,
a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations.
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the
right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they
have done to the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities,
where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over
three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control.
They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population
that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault
on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our
economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without
Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function
as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations
arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or
the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile
political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political
process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
... ... ...
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability
to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various
intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation
of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business
of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They
speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat
what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable
news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue
streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on
"Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity,
meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying,
racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused
by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq
War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby,
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story
the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't
go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming
the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any
rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or
Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies
the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and
one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who
pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the
"weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting
in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see
you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself
as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left --
not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories,
that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate
and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the
rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom
of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this
cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements
under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor
movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged
the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated
capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France.
There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon.
But here we almost have to begin from scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children
for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis.
We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already
hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient
organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with
people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique.
You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You
won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a
dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
Something about real foreign influence in Washington corridors of power ... Bankrolling
think tanks is pretty slick idea.
Notable quotes:
"... Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington. ..."
"... The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions. ..."
Otaiba has become one of the most powerful and well-connected men in Washington,
reportedly in touch with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, on a
weekly basis. His spending on galas, hospital wings, dinner parties, and birthday bashes has become
legendary. Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba
has
bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington.
The Emirati envoy's cachet stems in part from his close relationship with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan,
who is widely considered to be the effective ruler of the UAE. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, he
is known in the region and in Washington by his initials MBZ. Since 2000, Otaiba has reported directly
to MBZ as his head of international affairs, and then as the ambassador in Washington. "Before I
was introduced to him, the way he was described to me was the guy MBZ trusts most on foreign issues
and one of the smartest people in the UAE," said Kristofer Harrison, a former Bush administration
official who worked closely with Otaiba.
The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign
policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious
policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE
operates torture warehouses
and
funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and
stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.
A fixture among Washington society, Otaiba spent much of the last decade carefully constructing
the image of an enlightened Persian Gulf diplomat -- forward-thinking on women's rights, secularism,
and embracing the modern world. On International Women's Day this year, he published an
open letter to his young daughter to drive the point home.
Otaiba's homeland, meanwhile, does not often live up to such values. The UAE has some of the most
draconian sex crime laws of any place in the world. Just last week,
a man and a woman were arrested for having a conversation in a car while being unrelated and
unmarried. This week, two defendants were spared prison time for the crime of "
indecent attire ," but fined and deported nonetheless.
"... "I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric... ..."
"... "Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to." ..."
"... When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do." ..."
In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting mainstream media bias, James O'Keefe
has just dropped a new
undercover video which takes direct aim at the New York Times' Audience Strategy Editor, Nick
Dudich, who admits repeatedly to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things,
damage President Trump's businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation.
While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's
why I'm here."
Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas
Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."
Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:
"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...
"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump
brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating
his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about
his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do
something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."
When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories
make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."
To our complete 'shock', O'Keefe also learned the Dudich worked for Hillary's 2016 presidential
campaign and Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012...
In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:
"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do
video ... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."
He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to
leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore
to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."
Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after
the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like,
this isn't going to change."
Bizarrely, Dudich also claims to have joined the Antifa movement as an undercover agent for the
FBI...a request which he originally said came from his godfather, James Comey, even though he subsequently
retracted that statement.
Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa. "Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once
upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get
to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined
that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they
were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not." "How'd you meet Comey?" asked
the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and
his wife for a really long time." "Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm
not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if
they can keep me on."
One wonders if this qualifies as sedition. Imagine if someone had done something like this
to a previous president. If some group was on record trying to bankrupt Washington's Mt Vernon,
or Teddy Roosevelt's family members, with the full intent of subverting the government.
So he said he was working as an informant for the FBI and joined ANTIFA, was that a lie? What
type of a small minded fool lies about being a "special agent" working for the Gov't? Well this
type. Fox news "fair and balanced" , NY Times "Fairly Biased". But don't worry the Liberals will
still view the NY Times as the Paper of Record. Looney
Smith Mundt Act. The Presstitute appendage's of the Criminal Deep State can Propagandandize
/ Gas Light the masses with Impunity. And, in their sick, twisted, perverted minds, it's all Legal.
Yes, this is pretty much "bombshell" category considering Dudich's position, his title, a fancy
word play on Propagandist. MSM will never mention it. Not one aspect of it.
But would be worrying if it were the French rather than the Russians "interfering" with our
sainted elections?
AS is seen, it is not corruption that is perceived as the problem, it is WHO's corruption that
is the problem.
Who owns the NYTs and does anyone care? Carlos Slim? Why would we care if the owner is the
resident of one of the most violent and corrupt countries in the world, one emmersed in a socialist
bankrupt ideology for a hundred years?
I do find it strange that we started the last century so aware and afraid of the socialist/communist
virus, but as was predicted, we have embraced every last tenet of it's ideology under the mantle
of "progressivism". Note that communism is no longer a threat, just another alternative increasingly
openly embraced by the media and colleges....just like they said they would.
And it is TRUMP who is now the threat, not communist collectivist dependency. Interesting.
if it is sedition it looks like we can all count on Sessioms to not do a fucking thing about
it. Why haven't Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Rice and Obama been indicted? Or lying-under-oath master
Clapper?
I think you can certainly argue that the Dem/Spook/Media effort to create the Russiahoax stuff,
all as the feds never even examined the dnc server, or interviewed Assange, is quite literally
conspiracy and sedition.
Sessions isn't indicting, nor being directed to, nor fired. It's a big club...
What about the lack of professional decorum and a paper that regards itself as a premier publication?
All of these connected-up people at the top expect us to regard them as -- unquestionably -- deserving
of high positions, but they feel free to let loose with unprofessional behavior any time they
want if it serves 1) their own careerist means or 2) the careerist goals of their cronies.
"Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection
to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.
"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So,
I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."
He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I
joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing
if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."
"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained.
"My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "
Doesn't he make it sound a lot like he's just another 'made' chucklehead in the Mob?
Dudich is a poster child for the new millenial way of thinking. In their view lying is perfectly
okay so long as it serves one's arch-purpose. In this case it is to prevent Trump's agenda and
his 2020 bid (yet to be announced) for re-election. The tactic has been adopted by many of the
NYTimes reporters. It is the same with the other major media outlets (not Fox/WSJ so much). For
instance, if you write a comment in the WaPo online, if it does not conform to their liberal agenda,
it gets deleted and that is dishonest (mine were deleted several times. I have since banished
them). The media is very devious in how it is attempting to take over political contol of America.
They are a shameless and crooked bunch, making it very difficult to fight back. The real revolution
in America begins when the true conservative soul of America says, "No more". Until that happens,
further social decay will be the norm.
Too damn many English majors with serious emotional problems. Get Science and Engineering background
folks in there and all this non sense would end. This kid is a punk and worthy of a good daddy
belt beat down. Who raised this crap?
"... According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this. ..."
"... What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down. ..."
"... It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game. ..."
"... Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, ..."
"... the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget. ..."
"... The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first. ..."
"... I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses. ..."
"... "Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting. ..."
"... Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage. ..."
"... This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state. ..."
"... Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc.. ..."
"... So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc ..."
2. They are ineffective, especially Sputnik. According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a
total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of
visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many
orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this.
3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of
them).
The Europeans don't want to have American military bases there.
Not true. Some Europeans may not want that, but many others are perfectly content with the
state of the affairs. As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military
bases.
What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the
Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be
actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all day and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land
and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the
contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.
we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include
critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of
the war on terror.
It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in
American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step,
while Russia is fair game.
I don't trust Russia any more than you do. I have even less, much less, trust, for the UK,
Germany, France, the EU, as well as America's Democrats and Neocons.
If the Feds are going to make RT register as a foreign agent due to foreign funding, where
does it stop? On the same basis, all nationally owned news outlets must be forced to
register, e.g., BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. And what about nominally non-government owned news
entities that a home government renders financial assistance, eg, the London Times, if it
needed government loans to survive? Would it be a British foreign agent?
And what about the
New York Times, which in its perilous financial state appears to be substantially supported
by loans from a Mexican National, Carlos Slim who in turn must be assumed to work
hand-in-hand with the Mexican government, since most of his wealth comes from Mexican
government-granted franchises.
Should the New York Times be registered as a Mexican foreign
agent (its news coverage and editorials regarding immigration certainly would be evidence it
is acting in that capacity)?
OT If anyone wants to catch a nice laid back interview with Phil Geraldi they can do so
here:
A lengthy discussion about his sacking at TAC and AIPAC is had with Ryan Dawson. Both put
in nice plugs for unz.com. I was really happy to see Phil being interviewed by Ryan. I hope
they do this again sometime.
I came to Unz for Steve Sailer but Geraldi is slowly becoming my favorite author here.
Thanks for sticking with things Phil. You're doing great work.
That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted
Free Speech all dan and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the
Revolution, you paid dearly.
Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.
Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always
seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best
land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply
the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic
culture.
What of King Arthur? How did Britain go from Arthur to Cromwell?
What role Henry VIII, and Dutch banking/ Bank of England?
How did Russia go from Tolstoy to Trotsky?
What role Jacob Schiff and atheist Bolshevism/Communism?
How did Germany go from Wagner to Merkel( after a brief Hitler Interruptus )?
What role Rothschild, Marx/Zinoviev and Zionism?
FDR and Churchill were determined to keep organizationally strong Germany and
resource-rich Russia -- Christian Russia -- from uniting; Cromwell's England and Morgenthau's
USA wanted to control German skill and Russian resources; their heirs want the same
today.
Arthur's Britain and Wagner's Germany are natural allies of Tolstoy's Russia (and also
of Virgil's Italy and Ferdowsi's Persia, btw).
Toss over this White nonsense, it tells no story, moves no souls.
"Sputnik ..has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster
named Andrew Feinberg."
The amazing thing is that Feinberg ever had the job. In this painful interview, he readily
admits to little knowledge and less interest in the particulars of Ukrainian/Crimean/Russian
history, politics and recent events. Despite this inadequacy, he's managed to use his
dismissal for self-promotion.
Talking to ex-Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg about "Russian propaganda"
And on the flip side maybe all the Jewish/Israeli news organizations will register too,
maybe even AIPAC.
Foreign is foreign and fighting wars for foreign interests is no virtue.
It's no wonder we are able to make so many new frands and they just moving into the west
everywhere.
Spending taxpayer money in foreign countries is helping the US taxpayer. I guess moving a
quarter of the population that said foreign country can't take care of and dumping them on
the US taxpayer and their children is our gift. Then give them jobs here too.
This lovely
idea was signed initially during the Clinton admin with the UN, and put into place during the
Bush admin. Dems just hate corps except when they are their own. (Hegelian Dialectic at play
everywhere) 20 Rillion in Debt. Millennium Challenge Corporation
"MCC is a prime example of smart U.S. Government assistance in action, benefiting both
developing countries and U.S. taxpayers through:
Competitive selection: Before a country can become eligible to receive assistance, MCC's
Board examines its performance on independent and transparent policy indicators and selects
compact-eligible countries based on policy performance.
Country-led solutions: MCC requires selected countries to identify their priorities for
achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Countries develop their MCC
proposals in broad consultation within their society. MCC teams then work in close
partnership to help countries refine a program.
Country-led implementation: MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). When a
country is awarded a compact, it sets up its own local MCA accountable entity to manage and
oversee all aspects of implementation. Monitoring of funds is rigorous and transparent, often
through independent fiscal agents.
MCC forms partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries, but only those committed
to: good governance,
economic freedom,
and investments in their citizens."
@Wade
Interesting interview. Kind of disappointed not to see any evidence of Christianity in
Giraldi's home, or at least not in that camera shot. Maybe his naïveté in
approaching the issue, which brought on the artillary barrage, is due to his being oblivious
to the larger spiritual, civilizational, battle going on. Forest/trees.
"Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the
Midas story man is so avid for knowledge that everything that he touches turns to facts;
his faith becomes theology; his love becomes lechery; his wisdom becomes science; pursuing
meaning, he ignores truth." -Malcolm Muggeridge
Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, Canada and Mexico
being benign, because we all know that the US taxpayers are on the hook to defend Europe
against the nasty powerful Russians which (mainly) defeated Germany in the last big one, and
the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge
budget.
The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their
concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those
outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your
country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder
of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying
your nation: look in the mirror first.
@Anatoly
Karlin What you hope for is not in the interest of those of us who believe in free and
unfettered discourse, which principle is one of the core reasons to believe in ideals that
are supposed to define America.
It's fine to question foreign funded media, but it's against everything we are supposed to
stand for to ban them.
As the famous jurist wrote, the answer to bad speech is more speech.
Let's debate what's said by foreigners, and their advocates, whether Russian, British,
Israeli or any other. Our own government is not famous for truthfulness to the public,
either. Let our own government answer them, if they question it, and let us determine where
the truth lies, instead of being lied to.
I watch programs on RT fairly frequently, and moreso with the arrival of the current crop
of sitcoms, mindlessly insane 'dramas', firemen and cops shows, etc. Lotsa good stuff on RT.
If you read the credits, you will find that most of the specials and magazines are not
Russian productions. It's a good place to learn that much of the rest of world journalism
bears no resemblance to the propaganda machines of the US networks.
US TV and radio production is a vast web of fabrications designed for social control, to
manipulate public opinion, and to reinforce the will of the wealthy and powerful. The US
government is corrupt throughout; the purpose of US media is to turn the public eye away from
that corruption.
@Der Mann
ohne Eigenschaften A decade or so ago, when we still had a number of US bases in Germany,
my German colleagues and neighbors used to ask why most of the GIs never left the base and
only used Dollars for most of their commerce, again mostly on base, though a few merchants
took Dollars on a rather good exchange basis that a local could arbitrage if he was paying
attention. I experienced some of that a few decades ago myself when on TDY in Europe. The US
might want bases there, but a non-trivial number of the troops can't be bothered to wander
outside the gates very often, and may as well be in Nebraska or South Dakota for all their
interest in being there.
As for the Europeans, a lot of the local merchants did want the bases there, and a lot of
the locals welcomed the Amis. There were also places where the Amis represented a big payoff
for the smallest things; you would be surprised how productive egg-layers Portuguese chickens
were after you ran over one and found yourself compensating the farmer for all the eggs it
would have laid in its life.
I'm not sure why it is but we always seem to be on the Muslims side, everywhere to the
detriment of our own societies.
"Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they
have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.
There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are
Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organized than the local
Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population."
"For more than a year, Chechens, Muslims from southwestern Russia, have been fighting on
both sides of Ukraine's struggle against Russian occupation.
The undeniably frank reason one anti-Russia militiaman recently gave The New York Times?
"We always fight the Russians."
The Chechens have had a long and tense relationship with Russia's central government,
alternatively fighting for independence and courting special favor from the rulers in Moscow.
When Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014, it once again gave
Chechens a reason to push back against Russian overreach"
We have plenty of Muslims in Congress to represent their people. I'm sure our alphabet
agencies have plenty too. According to Wikipedia almost no one likes Russia.
"Widespread ethnic cleansing accompanied the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1992–95), as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were
forced to flee their homes and were expelled by Bosnian Serbs;[1] and some Bosnian Croats
also carried out similar campaign against Bosniaks and Serbs. Also, Bosnian Muslims conducted
similar acts against Croats, especially in Central Bosnia.[2]"
Fought for these in Afghanistan. Ex president made a home at the UN.
"The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation
of Afghanistan (Persian: جبهه متحد
اسلامی ملی برای
نجات
افغانستان Jabha-yi Muttahid-i
Islāmi-yi Millī barāyi Nijāt-i Afghānistān), was a military
front that came to formation in late 1996 after the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban)
took over Kabul. The United Front was assembled by key leaders of the Islamic State of
Afghanistan, particularly president Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad
Shah Massoud. Initially it included mostly Tajiks but by 2000, leaders of other ethnic groups
had joined the Northern Alliance. This included Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Abdul
Qadir, Asif Mohseni and others."
I like what you're bringing to the table here. I think the big issue is that money runs
the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at
the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively
young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses.
But that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just
trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting. Peace.
"Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to
divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where
do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting.
@Talhawill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth?
Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda.
The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select
eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil
at comment #28.
And why is that? Because your government and their MSM sycophants have brainwashed you to
think that way? It's time people like you that have this inherent distrust of Russia get a
grip and start using some critical thinking skills. I know that's really hard but give it a
try, o.k.?
@iffenwill be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses
Whose truth? Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda. The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are
whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not
carried 24/7 by every available outlet.
Whose truth?
I'll just be happy to get facts at this point. Most can't be bothered to get that part
straight. The MSM dropped the baton big time. Now people all over the internet are picking it
up – the problem I see is information glut. How does one sift through the incredible
amount of information.
Sputnik and RT are targeted in order to keep the "Boogey Man" alive by the following
parties:
1) Globalist Banksters – They desperately need continued wars to distract the global
peasants from the banker-caused multi-hundred trillion $ coming derivatives time-bomb and to
keep their drug wash flow going. Also, its getting more and more difficult to keep under
wraps the Dual-Financing of the "Official" Govts and "Deep State (SSP)" Govts. "Gotta keep
those Kabbalistic Blood Sacrifices going or our Invisible Sky Daddy will be mad at us and
won't let us on the Space Ship".
2) Big Pharma Slime (Vaccines/Viruses), GMO Sickos, Trans-Humanist Psychos, and Fascist
Neo-Cons – "Just trying to get that Agenda21 Borg World going". 500 million
micro-chipped global population is the goal.
3) The MIC – "We need more wars so we can keep force feeding our over-priced pieces of
crap to our satellite colonies" and multi-trillion $ financial redirect to the SSP.
4) Israel – Russia and Iran (Persia) are the perennial enemies of the Talmudic
Terrorists for kicking the Fake Jewish Khazarians/AshkeNAZIs out of their Western Asian
homelands around 1250 AD. The psychotic and retarded (613 Talmudic Commandments, REALLY?)
Clan Circumcision has a thing for blood feuds. Did you lose another Dolphin-Class
Submarine?
5) The dying USSA Empire of Tampons and associated prostitute Politicos – Former
colonies are fleeing East faster than Barry from his wife Michael er, I meant Michelle.
Petro-Dollar going poof. USSA economy heading for the big flush regardless of the jiggered
Plunge Protection Team numbers. "Must keep distracting our willfully-gullible peasant masses
with more False Flags and Wars else they wise up and HANG US ALL".
And lastly
6) Hillawi Bin-Gazi Dykehar – Former candidate with continued delusional desires for
Puppet Pres. of the USSA and current Jihadi commandante of Al-Shiksa. Al-Shiksa was last seen
campaigning at Costco. This terrorist group is populated by fat ill-tempered donut-bumping
Psycho Wenches and Cucked Eunuchs. Their battle cry is rumored to be "We love chocolate
cake!!!" or "Damn those Weiner Tapes!!!". Sorry, my Shiksanese is not up to speed.
RT talks about mass immigration problems,
shows more inside of Israel including their nasty policies,
questions neocons and liberals.
For an English speaking forum that is rare. The comment section.. sometimes its okay, sometimes bad.
You will find conservative/traditional posters majority.
Go to BBC, CNN, etc its liberal/"progressive" dominated. In the West Neocons and Liberals dominate the media. RT obviously has an agenda, probably divide. Sometimes comments get deleted.
Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies,
the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe
with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda?
Don't make me laugh!
The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of
advantage.
"The Russians tried to influence our election" taken at face value and removed from the
context of 65 years of American Foreign Policy is probably the most pernicious little bit of
self serving swamp propaganda that I've ever seen. It appears to be the factoid that the
Uniparty and its legions have chosen upon which to make their last stand and to hell with the
American people.
To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them
outright). – I hope you wrote this thoughtlessly because you were exasperated or
upset or something. You should perhaps take it back. There is no question that Russia is
better off with RT and Sputnik than w/o them. Any child understands it.
This assault on the First Amendment shows that the driving force behind the neocons is not
American. A real American would tend to value the Constitution more.
As Priss Factor mentioned, RT and Sputnik do tend to be left of center on many issues, but
they do appear to be sincere and independent leftists in contrast to the American prog
establishment which has become just a dog and pony show controlled and directed by Jewish
billionaires like Soros. RT especially is no friend of white nationalism although they have
given figures on the racialist right air time on occasion.
I do find they are more objective in foreign policy matters whereas the U.S. media ,
including, FOX, all sing from the same song sheet on foreign policy matters and only differ
slightly in degree. But they rarely seem to criticize Israel.
This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we
routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in
any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their
American vassal state.
Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or
'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands
of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said
that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin
harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc..
So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of
censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord,
undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual
one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc
It is a minor issue and mainly matters symbolically. But it is going to give US democracy
and freedom of speech reputation a black eye. How does recover once speech is banned because
it is causing 'division in the society'? The problem is that the ruling class simply doesn't
understand what classical liberal values are – they talk a lot, they 'lawyer' a lot,
but have no understanding of what a free society looks like.
FARA was a powerful tool against attempts to stage a color revolution in the particular
county. But it can't save decaying neolineraim. which by now probably exceeed useful shelf life.
The only thing that is keeping it afoot is there is no political force capable to provide viable
alternative. That's it. Bastard neoliberalism of Trump is essentially the acceptance of the
defeat.
The charge "Intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions" is too
broad change and if applied indiscriminately no other entity other then government controlled
press can operate in the country.
As a short term measure it definitely will be effective (although it increase popularity of
RT.uk or RT.ca) as this essentially shut down both in the USA. RT can operate much like Guardian
. But in a longer term, blacklisting RT (Sputnik is not that important) is a sign of weakness,
not strength.
But eventually the boomerang might return and not necessary for entities like "Voice of
America" (which after the collapse of the USA became a zombie for the xUSSR audiences). While
influence of Voice of America on foreign audience now is minuscule and this is mostly money
wasted due to decline of neoliberal ideology (and with it prestige and influence of the USA) ,
they can now be shut down with impunity, by any foreign government inclined to do so.
So in a way, the US actions engager crown jewels of its propaganda machine. also any such
action is a sign of weakness not strength by definition. It just signify that the tratment of
neoliberalism in RT can't be fought by directly.
And not only Voice of America but also similar, potentially more effective propaganda
entities. In effect that is the acceptable of the fact that neoliberal MSM are losing grip on the
population and require coercive measures against competitors.
Notable quotes:
"... The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation ..."
"... This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. ..."
"... Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. ..."
"... News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. ..."
"... The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. ..."
"... they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC. ..."
"... Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia ..."
Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the
Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent
bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in
Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the
FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has
sent
letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign
agent by October 17 th . The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is
pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading
disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its
institutions.
This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign
government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury
oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
Sputnik , which is owned by a Russian
government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under
investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg.
Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb
drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has
been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the
direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.
RT America , more television oriented
than Sputnik, operates through
two business entities : RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has
refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for
registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational
support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually
owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably
comes from the Russian government.
I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding
the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the
Russians have been interfering in our "democracy" and have had it coming. If that assumption on
my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also
constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant
collateral damage that might be forthcoming.
News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of
FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is
unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified
during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices
bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely,
and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.
The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs
and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of
contemporary journalism in the United States. America's self-described "newspapers of
record" the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a
lock on stories that are "true." The Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in
Darkness" while the Times proclaims "The truth is more important now than ever," but
anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they
have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic
Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the
admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.
What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January's report signed off on
by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik
"consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S.
media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment." Well,
they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among
the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times .
Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg
claimedinter alia that he was "pushed" to ask questions at White House press
briefings suggesting that Syria's Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical
attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg's reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not
the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been
widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even
regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?
There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted "trying to influence
opinion" using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting
stories where the "facts" have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories
selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All
news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.
I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with
Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done
so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position
insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who
are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are
essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places
like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.
Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the
United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what
it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian
government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have
had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S.
(usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on
RT International . To describe it as part of
an "influence campaign" driven by a "state-run propaganda machine" has a kernel of truth but it
is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government
financed news service, including Voice of America . Governments only get into
broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.
There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing
erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a
foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also
hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are
exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair
game.
Going after news outlets also invites retaliation
against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media
reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I
would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive
Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which
mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him
stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or
discredit the country's institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.
And then there is the issue of the "threat" posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study
suggesting that they have only 2.8 million
actual weekly viewers . RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most
popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other
foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks
in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is
miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive
higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January.
Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.
So it seems to me that the United States' moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than
lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian
"threat" to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America's democratic process. One
keeps reading or hearing how the American government has "indisputable" proof of Moscow's
intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is
still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
The irony is RT news is pretty much dominated by Progs and Leftists. It's not Russian
Nationalist or Conservative. But it features the kinds of Progs who do question and challenge
Globalist Oligarchs of the West.
They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the
US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of
influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think
tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their
domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.
As psychopaths lose their grip over the target, they change from cool, calm, lie-to-your
face con men to pathetic, shrieking cartoons of themselves.
The shredders were working overtime, bleach bit, hammers, cell phones wiped, people bumped
off, closing up all of the criminal gangster operations of the government before Trump got
in.
They can't get rid of him, not suing for re-counts, not getting him declared incompetent,
not stage-managed riots of Soros stooges, not a fake dossier with Russian whores peeing on
the Donald's bed, not screeching about Russia
Eventually, if our Republic is worth a shit at all, these crimes will finally be
acknowledged and the hysteria over Russia will subside.
What the Russians appear to have clearly recognized is how to take advantage of the
corrupt nature of the western 'mainstream' press, an institution which has been co-opted by
western intelligence agencies for a very long time.
The Russian method? It could not be more simple; report the actual facts in the
geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, practice lies by omission
Depending on the geopolitical reality of the day, for instance whether the paranoid
ego-maniac Sultan Erdogan of Turkey is behaving well or not, the stories by western
dissident journalists that will withstand a close scrutiny are run in Russian or Russia
friendly media outlets. The result? Odds are 100:1 you'll get more reliable information
from Russian state TV or Russian sponsored websites than from ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC
My take from 10 or so months ago. I don't really think much has changed except for the
'Russia hacked the election' story is clearly more false than ever; with narcissism queen
Julian Assange holding the story hostage:
Russia has been remarkably restrained in its counteractions. But retaliate fully it will.
China is getting its retaliation in first, with plans for an oil futures market, trading in
yuan, in Shanghai already near completion. The days of the Petro-dollar seem numbered. Will
American hegemony collapse with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
Either way, ten years from now, " Russiagate ", a fake scandal, will be almost completely
forgotten, rather like major real scandals earlier this century like Enron. The latter seems
to have been pushed right down the memory hole.
This is further evidence that the yankee regime walks and talks like a fascist duck. Its
deep state and its media acolytes, Carlos Slim's New York Times, CIA contractor Bezos'
Washington Post, PBS, the corporate parasite broadcast system, CNN, the Clinton News Network,
NBC, home of professional lesbian deepstate lackey Rachel Maddow, CBS and ABC (along with
government owned satellite state medias like BBC, CBC and Australia's ABC are quintessential
propaganda outlets. While the Russian outlets are naturally pro-Russian, they are less openly
propagandistic than the US-controlled propaganda press, which is on the side of barbarism in
its attitudes toward the middle east and NATO issues.
I actually find the quality of guests on RT to be far superior to what the British news
channels offer, embarrassingly so really as these guests seem easy enough to find whilst the
likes of the BBC believe the ill informed opinions of journalists is only of interest. RT UK
is also a lot more politically balanced with most of the media seemingly having ditched the
old ethos that they should at least make some vague attempt at balance. RT's coverage of the
migrant crisis was in stark contrast to the British media's cheer leading. In addition in the
past few years Palestine has completely disappeared from British screens however RT still
covers the occupation as well as matters such as the USS Liberty.
Anyway this does seem like part and parcel of the attempt to increasingly suppress the
press and free speech in the West, whether that is driven by lefty ideologues, zionists, an
unthinking security apparatus or a military with no purpose.
"... Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery! ..."
"... The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious. ..."
"... the whole thing is quite laughable, if it wasn't taken so seriously by so many doorknobs... ..."
"... b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google, Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies. ..."
"... Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she had popular support. ..."
"... Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus. But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy. ..."
"... If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than the corporate interests that pay them the most money. ..."
"... Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation - an expectation that money will never allow to be met. ..."
"... This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor ..."
After the ludicrous "Russian hacking" claims have died down for lack of evidence, the
attention was moved to even more ludicrous claims of "Russian ads influenced the elections".
Some readers are upset that continue to debunk the nonsense the media spreads around this. But
lies should not stand without response. If only to blame the reporters and media who push this
dreck.
As evidence is also lacking for any "Russian interference" claims the media outlets have
started to push deceiving headlines. These make claims that are not covered at all by the
content of the related pieces. The headlines are effective because less than 20% of the viewers
ever read beyond them.
Google has found no ads that "Russia", the state or nation, has bought. There is also no
evidence that the ads in question interfered in any way with the election. There is evidence
that any of the ads in questions aimed to achieve that. The opener of the piece repeats the
false headline claims. But now we have "Russian agents", not "Russia", which allegedly did
something.
Google has found evidence that Russian agents bought ads on its wide-ranging networks in an
effort to interfere with the 2016 presidential campaign.
The term "Russian agents" is not defined at all. Where these "secret agents" or Public
Relation professionals in Washington DC hired by some Russian entity?
Using accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government, the agents purchased
$4,700 worth of search ads and more traditional display ads, according to a person familiar
with the company's inquiry ...
"Accounts believed to be connected to the Russian government." Believed by
whom? And how is "connected" defined? Isn't any citizen "connected" to his or her
government?
Those believed , connected accounts bought a whopping $4,700 of ads?
Googles 2016 revenue was $89,000,000,000. The total campaign expenditures in 2016 were some
$6,000,000,000. The Clinton campaign spent some $480,000 on social network ads alone. But
something "Russian" spending $4,700 was "interference"?
But wait. There is more:
Google found a separate $53,000 worth of ads with political material that were purchased from
Russian internet addresses, building addresses or with Russian currency. It is not clear
whether any of those were connected to the Russian government, and they may have been
purchased by Russian citizens, the person said.
So now we are on to something. A full $53,000 worth of ads. But ....
The messages of those ads spanned the political spectrum. One account spent $7,000 on ads to
promote a documentary called "You've Been Trumped," a film about Donald J. Trump's efforts to
build a golf course in Scotland along an environmentally sensitive coastline. Another spent
$36,000 on ads questioning whether President Barack Obama needed to resign. Yet another
bought ads to promote political merchandise for Mr. Obama.
The film is anti-Trump. Obama not resigning would have been anti-Trump. Selling Obama
merchandise may have been good business, but is certainly not pro-Trump. So at least $43,000 of
a total of $53,000 mentioned above was spent by believed , connected
"Russians" on ads that promoted anti-Trump material. How does that fit with the claims that
"Russia" wished to get Trump elected? Putin pushed the wrong button?
The allegedly "Russian" Facebook ads were just
a click-bait scheme by some people trying to make money. The allegedly "Russian" Goggle ads
were of a volume that is unlikely to have made any difference in anything. They were also
anti-Trump.
Clinton lost because people on all sides had learned to dislike her policies throughout the
years. She was unelectable. Her party was and is acting against the interest of the common
people. No claim of anything "Russian" can change those facts.
But, But, But
It is OK when the US of A ( via NED, USAID aka CIA covert ops) does it in Iran, some African
countries, South American and even in Western Europe circa the '60's, to elect puppets
Clinton won the election. Trump winning the Electoral College doesn't change that. If anybody
has been repudiated by popular vote, it is Trump. It wasn't a huge win because the Democratic
Party platform of how great the economy is is not going to win big for the good and simply
reason it's BS. And black voters weren't going to turn out for a white candidate. If winning
the election is a moral endorsement and losing is conviction of sin, then it is Clinton who
was the angel and Trump who was the devil in the judgment of the American people. Seeing
Clinton supporters as demons serving evil just means you hate the American people.
Either the Trumpists are getting exactly what they wanted, which exposes them as shameful.
Or they got blindly picked the biggest liar because, stupid. It's a lose/lose situation.
Since the Electoral College has made the election moot, what is the point of savaging Clinton
except a desperate effort to apologize for Trump?
Russia is for and against Trump, and is thus destroying American democracy! We have
always been at war with Eurasia! Freedom is slavery!
The dangerous projection from the US elites where anyone and anything can be turned
into something "evil" through the mere suggestion of any connection to Russia is no longer
shocking--but that makes it no less disturbing and insidious.
if the Dems wanted to campaign for the NEXT election rather than the LAST one, they could try
opposing Trump on an actual issue... but I don't see Clinton doing squat for Puerto Rico, EPA
standards, Black Lives, health care, Yemen, education, etc. The truth is, she and her party
don't oppose Trump on anything except who won the last election and which country to threaten
next.
I stopped listening to Amy Goodman over a year ago when I got sick of hearing nothing but
this partisan BS, though once in a while I turn it on for a few minutes, and Goodman is STILL
going on and on about Trump v Clinton! but today I got to hear Julian Assange tell her off,
so it was worth it.
b you are right to continue to focus on this issue. The Russia hysteria is beginning to
burn itself out. However the msn and the Democrats are now beginning to focus on Google,
Twitter and Facebook instead. Hillary last week gave a talk at Stanford calling for those
companies to censure false news reports. If her plan was put into effect one of its targets
would obviously be MoA along with hundreds of other outlets on both the left and the right
that challenge the usual deep state "news" promoted by the mainstream news monopolies.
Johnson #2. You obviously do not understand the US constitution. It was crafted to
distribute political power to all of the States, not to just those with the largest
populations. That was done deliberately and carefully in order to get the 13 former colonies
to agree to joining a united states. That is why we have the electoral college and why each
of the states have exactly two US senators irrespective of their population. So you want to
abolish the electoral college? Well then change the US constitution. Of course keep in mind
that the constitution has a rule for that process too -- it requires that 2/3 of the states
agree. Good luck with trying that! Well you loyal Hillary sycophants should just go back and
continue to cry in your beers like the pathetic losers that you all are.
The 2016 election, as with every federal election since at least 2000, was rigged.
Identifying all of the ways in which it was rigged is still open to debate, but we
know for sure that during the primary the DNC manipulated the schedule for "Super Tuesday" so
as to pad Clinton's lead with meaningless red states which would never turn out for her in
the general, that numerous states also executed suspect purges of their voter roles in
precincts leaning heavily toward Bernie Sanders, and that Clinton fraudulently secured the
electoral votes of some 400 so-called "super delegates" in order to create the illusion she
had popular support.
Furthermore, we know that the DNC itself promoted Trump because they wrongly believed
that he would be easier to beat in the general election. If anyone really adulterated our
democracy during this election, it was the DNC and, as usual, the corporate media apparatus.
But as with any large-scale CYA operation, the first order of business is to distract
attention away from the domestic perpetrators by hyping up an external threat and projecting
all manner of crimes to this shadowy enemy.
It's been the same tired song and dance in this country since forever, and I don't think
it'll ever change, especially not with almost universal control of the government, media,
finance, and industry by the money-printing fifth column.
If one looks at the recent history of which bills pass in congress, and how close the
votes lie, it is very easy to see the BIG LIE that these people represent anything other than
the corporate interests that pay them the most money.
The 'differences' they postulate and promulgate across media are of things
inconsequential, or of things that can never be wholly resolved with laws and regulations.
When important things arise, they are locked away in committee or alleged 'deadlock'. What
bills do pass are always, not sometimes, but always those that enrich their own pockets in
some way.
Those that believe in either cause, Democrat or Republican, are avoiding the truth staring
them in the face. They prefer the old reality we lived in where news could be controlled via
5 or 6 media outlets. They prefer The Matrix to the reality of where we exist today.
The truth is slowly oozing out, even as these parasitic creatures shovel and shove it back
under rocks and into overflowing waste bins. The result of this is apathy in extremis. This
will continue until a disaster or collapse of some part of the existing system forces people
to act for change.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Hillary was the same, and I fully expect the next
bunch of politicians to show even more stark symptoms. To expect the MSM to do other than
purvey the lies and obfuscate and distract is simply an illogical and fallacious expectation
- an expectation that money will never allow to be met.
This entire Russiagate thing is a distraction, canard, red herring - pick your noun
for falsity. It's purpose is to obfuscate other things the corporations and governments are
doing elsewhere. Caveat emptor
Last week saw the Senate Intelligence Committee going after Russia's influence in the "free
market places of ideas": Twitter, Facebook, etc. Senators fulminated over Twitter's failure to
appreciate the magnitude of the danger of Russia's interference in free elections. Cartoonists
lampooned Russia with caricatures of the famous Russian military parades showing the Facebook
and Twitter logos as displays in the parade along with tanks and missiles.
Suddenly the Senate was all atwitter over, well, Twitter. Who's feeding this sudden
awareness?
The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the
German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits
keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media.
It's an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and
the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the
hillary-cons.
They're determined to turn up the heat against Moscow, not just in the United States, but to
spread the Cold War mania to Europe through its GMF network.
For now, the Alliance's money seems to be limited, but it is a clear move to migrate the
"Never Trump" Republicans into alliance with the Democratic Party, even further polluting and
destroying that party on the foreign policy front.
With a network of some 2 dozen operatives in the USA and Europe (including former Assistant
Secretary of Defense under Obama, Derek Chollet) the Alliance for Securing Democray blog is
churning out steady stream of articles about Russian interference in elections (including big
focus on the latest German elections) and demanding that Congress take action to further
investigate/stop Russian interference in said elections. They claim to be monitoring 600
Russian twitter accounts that they think are threatening democracy.
A significant part of the apparatus comes from the group, Foreign Policy Initiative which
went belly up in August, 2017, when it ceased operations. According to The Nation, FPI's demise
was largely due to the dropping off of funds in 2017 after the Trump election. The FPI was led
by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These "never Trump'ers" were apparently an albatross after
the 2016 elections for some Republican and conservative deep pockets who always want to keep a
path open to the White House, no matter who they preferred.
Now Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy
along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Also
on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept. Chertoff recently
landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6 th , headlined, Congress Can
Help Prevent Election Hacking. I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this
front if the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" has its way.
Securing democracy? The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?
Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald did an impressive first expose of this outfit in
July of this year, identifying the alliance between the war party neo-cons and the Democratic
Party, but there's a lot more to watch in its continuing operations to promote its Cold War
agenda, especially in Congress.
these neo con bloodsuckers are becoming irrelevant.. sure, they continue to suck on the blood
of a number of countries, but it is going to come to an end. if fact, it looks like the end
is in motion at present.. they want their war where-ever, and the corporations are all in tow
on this.. meanwhile ordinary people can see it for what it is..
i saw an article in fox news from kagan.. what was interesting were the comments in
response to his drivel... it gave me hope that people who are crazy enough to even read
something on fox news, can see bullshit when they see it and are willing to call it as such..
people aren't beholden to the western msm as much as some would like to think..
How can ordinary people, like me, be informed and make sound decisions? Common sense with a
strong bu****t meter helps. But there's so much going on and cross currents.
- Personally I don't think there has ever been a 'reset'.
It's the same as it ever was - they are still there operating in plain sight & pulling
the strings & levers of power in both the US Senate & Congress, of course the
influence of the AIPAC 'bloc' cannot be overlooked.
HRC was their candidate, as was BHO, as was Bush the younger, as was WJC et al.
PNAC is alive & well, the plan is still to destroy any nation which can independently
produce/supply hydrocarbons outside of the control of the US/Saudi hydrocarbon cartel, or act
as a third party transit corridor to China or Europe.
These nations typically fall foul of 'coloured revolutions', or ethinc minorities within
them - normally Sunni Muslims suddenly become the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by State Govt
forces, no proof of this (pictures, moving images etc is ever provided by the MSM). The issue
is presented to the world as an 'uman rights issue. Often local Sunni extremists (sometime in
neighbouring states) then wage 'Jihad' & thus the state in question is totally destroyed
& 'Balkanised in the process.
Coupled with this is the ongoing operation to isolate Russian geopolitical & economic
influence over Festung Europa whilst drawing an ever more 'Balkanized 'Europa' into more
reliance on US influenced sources of hydrocarbons.
Simultaneous to this is the encirclement of Russia on 3 sides with THAAD style weapons
& conventional military forces to create a preemptive Nuclear/Conventional Strike
Scenario a reality.
In the Asia Pacific region its also a similar plan directed against China.
All of this is directly linked to maintaining the economic hegemony of the US 'Empire'
into the 21st Century.
Its not that simple to work out or follow.
Just my vacant ramblings this fine Monday morning 'downunder' feel free to rip it apart as
you wish.
Myanmar - shaping up to become a new hydrocarbon overland transit route from the Gulf for
China (avoiding the Malacca Straights maritime chokepoint) in exchange for an invitation into
the OBOR Project - Well it was until -
All of a sudden the Royhingas have been murdered en masse & driven into exile into
neighbouring Bangladesh (incidentally has anybody actually seen ANY pictorial moving footage
evidence of ANY of this?)
Bangladesh ... where the 'jihad' to avenge the Royhinga pogrom will be launched into
Myanmar ... has just 'accepted' an offer from the Kingdom of Saudi to construct hundreds of
new Mosques & Madrassas ... the perfect breeding ground to hatch a new generation of
Jihadis in SE Asia. Bangladesh will be in a perfect geographic position to threaten
neighbouring Indian provinces too. India has the largest Muslim population outside of the
Muslim world. There several million Bangladeshi migrant workers inside The Gulf states
working for a pittance ... who knows what some of them are up too.
Catlonia ... is/was setting itself up as a major LNG entry point into the EU from North
Africa ... primarily Algeria, since the predicted US 'Shale Boom' has not actually
materialised in sufficient volume to 'wean' the EU away from Russian Gas supplies.
Syria & now the likely formation of this quasi Kurdish state straddling the Shia
Crescent ... it really IS all about the Gas ... how can the Syrian state access its
hydrocarbons & move them abroad to the foreign market if somebody else has been
encouraged to create a quasi state right on top of them?
The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim &
since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a
full blown 'insurgency' in the south despite plenty of US Military hardware in the very local
region (or is id direcly BECAUSE of the proximity of US Military forces?).
Nah. You couldn't've, because you were running on empty why you started your screed.
>>>The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly
Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China
they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south ...
A) Mindanao is the locus of the insurgency, and it has been that way ever since Spain
annexed it into its "The Philippines" administrative region.
B) The Muslim population of Mindanao is hardly the "southern half" of the Philippines; at
best, they are the "Southern sixteenth."
C) The Muslim portion of the "Southern Half of the Island Chain" makes up a total of about
6% of the total population of the Philippines. How you jump from there to "the southern half
of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim" is beyond me. That's simply factually false.
D) Duterte's overtures towards China have been overwhelmingly supported by the local
population, a vast number of whom have relatives who are overseas laborers working in
Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canton/Guangdong, etc. In fact, the local Muslims in Mindanao
were trained by the US, and those currently financed by the Saudis (and, in the 70s, trained
by the U.S.) are staunchly opposed to Duterte's campaign to open up the Philippines to
Chinese investment.
Long-story-short: you're wrong on pretty much everything I am in a position to criticize
you on, and I suspect the rest of your screed can be similarly debunked.
Yep, the usual economic determinism mumbo jumbo from this guy, an epidemic in amateur and
professional poli sci circles conducting analysis on US geopolitical actions since 2003. Cast
aside the wide scope of history into the dustbin and focus on the US as some omnipotent robot
machine that runs on plundered oil. If the Colonel is reading this, what got me hooked on SST
was a comment of his back in 2014 in which he shot down that economic determinism crap as it
related to Iraq
It is just beyond belief that the majority of these clowns continue to be treated as if they
have a shred of credibility left or that their ideas carry ANY weight when it comes to their
outrageously incompetent foreign policy decisions/actions. That their ideological ideas have
any value at all, particularly when there has been no admission of a mistake or a
reorientation of their ideas, is just astounding. To be wrong so repeatedly and so publicly
should have engendered a least some, however small, sense of shame or humility.
On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.
'On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate
this bullshit.'
absolutely. that these clowns, along with the various members of the pundit class
(friedman, krugman) who, after being repeatedly wrong about any number of things, continue to
be provided their bully pulpits tells you all you really need to know...
Every time I read about William Kristol's latest career move I am reminded of those old
Hammer Horror movies with Christopher Lee.
The dude comes to a grisly end in every movie, yet there he is in the next one, back from
the grave and - inevitably - none the wiser for the experience.
Ol' Dracula never once stops to think: Ya' know what, these always end badly. Maybe I
should sit this one out?
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red
Czar).
With every passing day, the Neo-Cons and their fellow travelers are introducing the Soviet
method into American politics: Denunciations, Conspiracies, and the Never-Ending Search for
Wreckers.
Jacob Heilbrunn, via, I know, I know, the NYT. But, Heilbrunn, JULY 5, 2014
WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative
movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama,
not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era
Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Does anyone remember the curious renaissance of the neocons? Quite a time before the
election officially started or heated up?
Iraq, looked at in hindsight with the appropriate and needed distance in time, may not
have been that wrong after all? At least once there was someone else to blame? The
appropriate public period of repentance seemed to be over. New servants available, that might
escape the probling public eye?
Now the Americans may not have chosen the right "cherry blossom king" (Tyler) in their
opinion, or backed the right horse in the race. But does that matter? Strictly, hadn't the
winner delivered the new meme variant quite dutifully?
One has to keep open to twists of fate, seize the day, I would assume Trump knows that
too. Let's see. ...
******
Yes, now I remember a tale in Boccaccio's The Decameron, Sixth Day, Tenth Tale, Friar
Cipolla and a Feather of the Angel Gabriel. Which might fit. One of my favorites really.
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the
Red Czar).
Judging by the "level" of Western historic narrative (granted with some notable
exceptions) on Russian/Soviet history of the 20th Century, I would be very cautious when
reading anything from Great Britain, especially from people with Montefiore's background. Not
to mention people who praise him--from WSJ, NYT etc. Western awareness of actual, real
Russian history is extremely low.
This is the first I've heard of the German Marshall Fund other than on The Ministry of
Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the
propaganda uh, programming. I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a
helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.
100% with you my rational thinking brother. I have another post here somewhere, Facebook
excecs had to be asked 3 times before they "found" these alleged Russian election changing
ads- just writing that makes me laugh- and stated that approximately 56% of these ads only
ran after the election. I mean we no those evil Russians are ultra cunning and highly
sophisticated but even so that takes some doing.
And the NSA, GCHQ, CIA does not have trolls apparently despite their massive budgets? Bear in
mind lefty news outlets are favourite covers for western security services. An example of
this is Kim Philby who while ostensibly working for MI6 was posted to the middle east working
for the Sunday edition. You know before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed the wall to
wall anti-Russian propaganda and the extremely close relationship between the Clinton
campaign and the US media indicates the trolls are running mainstream media in the US and the
UK.
It's the sense of entitlement that gets me, candidates throw as much questionable campaign
contributions at an election (such as Singer) and believe the electorate has a duty to vote
for them, and if the dont then the it must of been because of the opposition corruption and
the stupidity of the lower orders rather than incompetence or policy failure such as
representing wall St. rather than main St. on their part.
I'll do that English course when I have time, at the moment - and for the foreseeable- future
I'm flat out ridiculing the Russia-gate nonsense and the fools who are eager to champion any
old nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and continue to do so even when it is comprehensively
demolished.
There is tonnes of more proof that refugee numbers in Europe and the illegal bombing of Libya
and arming of 'rebels' in Syria are connected, yet everyone avoids that question.
There is also video proof that McCain and Nuland had incited the violent overthrow of the
elected government in Ukraine a few years ago. Before accusing me of being a Russian troll, I
am Hungarian.
Facebook spending by "russia" $100,000, unclear that was russian government.
Presidential salary of Bill Clinton $400,000/year. Clinton's at start had little net worth
according to them, now they have estimated net worth of $110 million+, much of it comes from
speeches, including to groups in places like Saudi Arabia.
Clinton foundation charity received donations from foreign governments and individuals,
including millions from some in saudi arabia. Not possible to see exact amounts.
US spending in ukraine over 20 years according to politfacts.com: About $2.4 billion went
to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border
security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement
interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing
justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic
growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).... of course not all money
by CIA may be disclosed here.
I suspect Russia, US, and many other countries do spend on influencing other countries,
small potatoes though compared to how much Hillary and Trump spent, and those hundreds of
millions of dollars given to Hillary and Trump were probably partially to influence/bribe
them for later government decisions.
Are you not embarrassed writing this?
McCarthy is dead, the 50s are over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, The Billion Dollar
Brain and Dr Strangelove was not advice on how to run a successful US foreign policy, nobody
believes this nonsense anymore.
Quite honestly it is articles like this make me wish the Guardian would hurry up and go
bankrupt, although I hope your more reputable Journalists (such as Larry Elliot) continue
their journalism in another form. You are dragging a paper with a proud history from
Manchester radicalism into the mud and besmirching real journalists trying to carry out real
journalism.
To quote another 'article' in the Guardian (I use the word loosely) that does not have
comments "Russian operatives spent thousands of dollars on Google ads, source claims". Really
$1000s of Dollars, there are pet food ad campaigns that spend more than this.
Is the Guardian world news just run out of somebody else's office?
Yes, lets follow the money, using facts who made campaign contributions to the Democratic
and Republican party.
Yes, there is a conspiracy all right, it's the old one of the plutocrats conspiring
against the poor. To ensure their man or woman would represent wall street not the electorate
such as by ensuring Sanders was blocked by the super delegates. Then trying to ensure the
more finance friendly candidate became president, such as by google working closely with the
Clinton campaign. And no this is not misogyny as Bill Clinton was Americas worst domestic
president in history. 3 strikes and you're out, workfare mass incarceration of black people,
deregulation of finance. George W gets the crown as worst US president in foreign affairs due
to Iraq.
And the Russians according to evidence free speculation spent $1000s and were successful?
You are aware that $1.4bn is larger than $1000s? The US are obviously not very good at
advertising or capatalism or democracy, and if you want a cost-effective ad campaign go to
Russia, as nobody in history has run such a cost effective ad campaign where 1000s can be
more effective than Bns.
Quite frankly I am insulted this article is being presented in what used to be a reputable
newspaper.
For a good laugh go to Consotiumnews. com, read the article headed The mystery of the
Russiagate puppies. There is a lot there but essentially Clinton's desperate losers would
have us believe that a page set up for puppy lovers was Trojan horse to start slipping in
anti Clinton stuff. Those evil evil Rooskies, is there no end to their perfidy! puppies! is
nothing sacred?! A line that got a laugh for me is:' if some fact, like the puppies page
doesn't seem to fit the sinister conspiracy theory you simply pound it into place until it
does
If we can only fully understand something by following the money Diana, why does your
organisation, the Center for American Progress Action Fund - which Politico says 'openly runs
political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party's
infrastructure' - refuse to disclose who its donors are?
There's a mountain of pig flop, most of the alleged "evidence" has collapsed under relatively
mild scrutiny. Remember the "hacked" voting machines and electric utility computer system?
not only not the evil Russians, just didn't happen at all and there are other tissue thin
bits of "evidence". No convincing any of Clinton's sore loser bleaters of course but I assume
you are aware that 25% of the alleged Russian ads were not viewed by anyone and that many
were not run til AFTER the election. Is there no end to those devilish Rooskies that they can
impact an election result AFTERWARDS!
It wasn't the entire US intelligence community - it was hand picked representatives from four
agencies. By the way, how are you going with all those weapons of mass destruction that the
entire US intelligence community was so sure of?
Let me get this straight. The USA, which holds the modern record for interfering in other
people's elections, for engineering coups, for doing dodgy deals with cocaine and heroin
merchants to fund death squads, which BOASTED (on the front cover of Time no less) of fixing
the 1996 election in Russia, has now got it's tits in a tangle because some maybe, might be,
could possibly be if you hold them edge on against a red light, Russians bought some Facebook
ads. Seriously?
Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad
In previous elections China has been linked to helping Democrats I don't see anyone
complaining, perhaps because the Democrats won. The USA, under a Democratic Preisdent spent
nearly $100 million dollars on an attempt to affect the election of an ally Israel in a vain
attempt to get rid of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Welcome to politics.
> So, it's not Facebook's problem that they are aiding and abetting treason?
So, if the let's say an entity connected to the US government pays for an article/ advert
that could be linked to some protests or a controversial issue in a foreign country, then the
entity who sold the media space is guilty of treason?
Be careful what you wish for.
The reason you don't even see how wrong you points to the fact that the US is a
semi-totalitarian state already.
So wait, I'm trying to follow the logic of continuing to beat the Russia drum after it's so
clearly jumped the shark. Let me see if I understand...
What you're now telling me is that Clinton and her cadre of policy wonks and election
experts had the entire media behind them (including the owners of Google, Facebook, Twitter,
etc.) and spent $1,200,000,000 to win the election.
Nevertheless, they still lost against *Donald Trump*. ...Because...because the Russians
"hacked the election" with $150,000 and a few online trolls. Is this what it's come to? Say
it ain't so.
Also, why isn't the actual content of these election-changing ads being disclosed? What
did they say? What propaganda did "The Russians" use that was so effective on the American
public?
I mean, did "The Russians" promote any ideas that were actually *more* offensive than what
the Guardian publishes on a daily basis? I'd like to see the Russian identity politics ads to
compare...
The only trolls are the ones claiming that unproven allegations of Russians buying a handful
of ads on facebook are somehow more important than the fact that both our political parties
are owned and operated by private corporate interests.
> Only through this method can we fully understand the Russian corporate hydra behind the
ad buys
Lol. I am here with my popcorn to be entertained. Bring it on.
American politicians spend billions on their campaigns , but, sure, facebook has to
investigate those few allegedly Russian linked ads. They are just a drop in a sea of
political propagandizing and manipulation that goes on daily.
Also, how does this align with the freedom of speech? The way I look at it - as long as
information is truthful, it doesn't matter what source it is coming from, friendly or
unfriendly. Going after the source just because you don't like what being said seems to be
the old method of killing the messenger.
And who is the author of this article? "Diana Pilipenko is a principal investigator for
the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."
It figures. Someone who works for whatever "Center for American Progress Action Fund" is.
She is basically a lobbyist.
Whats truly laughable is this whole "was Russia involved" witch-hunt particularly in light of
all the US involvement in swinging Latin American elections etc for DECADES! We are basically
encouraging the people who live in glass houses to throw as many stones as possible and get
away with it!
Much as I don't like Trump that whole "was Russia involved in the Hillary-wikileaks" was
also purely a diversionary tactic. Don't talk about the content talk about who might have
provided it. Personally I don't care whether it was North Korea who dug it up, what should
have been THE story was the appalling corrupt stuff that was in those shocking leaks, and it
surely would have been front-page news for months had the target been Sanders or Trump and
not Wall Streets chosen favourite! IMHO we the public are being taken for mugs!
During the Cold War you had "Team B" looking for non-existent nefarious Russian schemes. It
was staffed by the now infamous Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
At least they looked into matters of import such as nuclear missiles and submarines, this
is more like "Team Z".
Ironically the people devoting the most effort to investigating Russiagate are
Wolofowitz/Rumsfeld's brothers in arms from the Iraq days, like Bill Kristol.
The FSB chief and Putin must be having a right laugh. Western journos who are still sore over
HRC losing the American Presidential Election are making for the best unpaid shills to extol
Russian intelligence and political power.
It seems to me that pundits like the one that wrote this risible article are doing far more
to promote KGB and Russian propaganda around the world and in the West than the Russians
themselves, through their screaming of "BIG BAD RUSSIAN BEAR!!!!!" from every soap box they
can find.
Putin should invite them to the Kremlin and decorate them for service to the Motherland.
Even CIA couldn't dream of such mythologising by the mass media.
"Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political
ads in 2016 ..."
0.00153% to be exact. Same proportion of total voters who voted for anybody would be 2000
people. Or 0.115 cents per voter. Yeah, this is a big news story.
I cannot resist another analogy. A Super Bowl commercial (and we all know what big fans of
the NFL the Left is) goes for $5 million per 30 seconds. The amount mentioned in this article
would buy a 900 millisecond ad (that's 0.9 seconds for those who missed it). Need some good
subliminal flash advertising to get your money's worth.
Let me know when the investigation reveals that the $150,000 spent on Facebook ads by the
Russians starts to be significant compared to the $9.8 billion spent on the campaign adverts.
Clinton vastly outspent Trump and still lost because she was a deplorable candidate.
Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on
political ads
And they would be correct. Out of the $7 billion or so spent on the American elections,
it's a piddling amount. However, you are clinging to it for dear life because, almost a year
on, you can't accept that Clinton was a horrible candidate, so much so that even someone as
obscene as Trump could beat her (and yes I know she got more votes thank you very much).
You're really coming across as desperate now. Not a good look.
Most of these ads look more like click bait than any kind active measures campaign. As usual,
there is no evidence that the ads are in anyway connected to the Russian government. Even if
they were, $150,000 worth of ads are insignificant in an election where over $1billion was
spent on digital advertising. American elites should spend more time pondering how their
policy failures contributed to Trump's election and less chasing the chimera of Russian
interference.
This whole Russian meddling is getting more and more absurd. Clinton spent billions on
advertising and lost. Some supposed Russian investors spent thousands on puppy photo sites as
part of a cunning plan to suck Americans in. Russia is behind black lives matter, Russia is
behind taking the knee at american football matches, Russia is behind the Catalan referendum,
Russia is behind Brexit, Russia is probably behind the Dove advert. And anyone who finds the
whole farrago of mudslinging at Russia is obviously a Putinbot from a troll farm somewhere in
St Petersburg. The lunatics have very definitely taken over the asylum in America.
Roy Greenslade wrote an excellent column today on fake news. The hysteria regarding Russian
involvement in US politics could well be a prime example of which Roy writes. The Nation, in
an article titled Russiagate Is More
Fiction Than Fact details exactly how this tale of innuendo, supposition but very little
evidence has been pushed. The Nation examines in detail the Facebook accusations, and
records:
Then there is Facebook's disclosure that fake accounts "likely operated out of Russia"
paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board
described it as "further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of
American democracy." A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a
$6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, "the vast majority of ads didn't specifically
reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate" but rather
focused "on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological
spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun
rights." Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen "after the
election." The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were
used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.
The ads are commonly described as "Russian disinformation," but in the most extensive
reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that
the ads "appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency,"
itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).
The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts
found that they "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for
a foreign government." Furthermore, "the security team did not find clear evidence of
Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts." But Russiagate logic
requires a unique response to absent evidence: "The sophistication of the Russian tactics
caught Facebook off-guard."
Would it be too much to ask for actual evidence of Russian interference, rather than this
leap to conviction?
The official US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. that excludes any
friendship. The best that can be done is to avoid WWIII. And due to Putin patience that might be
possible. After Putin is gone, who knows. If nationalist come to power, the neocon might
really feel the depth of Russian anger at the US imperial policies.
Bunch of neocons travel to Moscow to test waters for rapprochement. After then pissed Russia
and launched neo-McCarthyism campaign for the last two years... such a great diplomats.
Those neocons completely poisoned the well and now want to drink clean water. No way.
Notable quotes:
"... President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. ..."
"... because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections ..."
"... Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie ..."
"... It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. ..."
"... The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt. ..."
"... I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke. ..."
"... The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations. ..."
"... Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration. ..."
"... NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia. ..."
"... trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp ..."
Russian officials were largely dismissive of U.S. and European economic sanctions, which some
indirectly credit with significantly strengthening Russia's agricultural sector -- to such an
extent that they claimed Russian products may fiercely compete in Europe if and when the
European Union eases it sanctions and Russia lifts its protectionist counter-sanctions. Indeed,
the U.S. Department of State itself asserted in 2016 that a loss of
"at most 1 percent of GDP can be potentially explained by sanctions" as opposed to declining
global energy prices. The combination of "at most" and "potentially" in this sentence suggests
that there is little empirical evidence that sanctions have caused real damage to Russia's
economy. Moreover, since U.S. sanctions could account for only a small part of this -- because
Europe's economic
relationship with Russia is far larger than America's -- there is no reason to think that
new U.S. sanctions, which have yet to be fully implemented, will make a material difference at
the macroeconomic level. (The State Department did find that sanctioned companies appeared to
lose significant revenue and assets.) Still, some officials did privately admit that the
sanctions undermine Russia's investment climate, especially among foreign investors.
At the same time, however, some officials reacted quite strongly to the Trump
administration's decision to close Russia's consulate in San Francisco, the latest move in an
escalating diplomatic spat that began with the Obama administration's expulsion of thirty-five
Russian diplomats and seizure of two diplomatic properties in December, following a widely
publicized intelligence community report on Russia's election interference.
Even in this area, however, our interlocutors seemed to prefer curtailing the dispute over
extending it -- notwithstanding President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that
the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy
in Moscow.
Yet containing this battle between the State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry
bureaucracies may well be the easiest step in working toward a functional U.S.-Russia
relationship. Far more important and more challenging will be addressing Russia's election
interference, which has poisoned the relationship to an extent that Russian officials -- who
describe the matter strictly as a U.S. partisan slugfest brought on by sour-grapes Democrats --
did not seem to appreciate....
... Russia's
diplomatic, economic, military and security officials will each seek to pursue their own
objectives, sometimes contradicting one another. Also, because Mr. Putin does not seem to
feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major
concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's
2018 presidential elections .
Thus "getting to yes" on these or other issues will take
persistence and creativity.
Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, is executive director of
the Center for the National Interest.
Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the
US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that
the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a
direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election
rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie
I agree with you that Russia probably did not hack the US elections. Julian Assange, head
of WikiLeaks, has made it quite clear that he received the Clinton campaign emails from
elsewhere. (and he has a 100% history of being truthful with regard to what he releases) But
I would say to Russia to not give up on better relations with America. It is true that the
"deep state" and the Military Industrial Complex make a lot of money from "bad relations"
with Russia, but I think Trump understands that improving relations will be good for both
sides and potentially save a lot of money for America's citizens. Give it some time.....
Wow, good to hear a sober voice! I have felt some backlash personally in the commercial
world, and it really feels nasty (basically just like racism), especially since I feel like
1/2 American, having lived in the US for 11 years. So this has gone very deep even in private
sector.
Not too sure about good prospects coming up soon. I'm following both the foreign and domestic
policies of the current government in Washington and its a bit scary - Cuba, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, NK, China, Iran - all are becoming enemies, sanctions reintroduced, and all the
ultra-right wing stuff home like getting rid of health insurance, removing all regulations,
now 20% poverty rate in CA, I don't recognize the country I used to live a couple decades
ago!
It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working
together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run
its course and less and less people believe it. It is now looking like it was the Obama Admin's justice department that actually paid for the phony "Trump Dossier" that was used as
an excuse to wiretap the Trump campaign. Once that story blows up (Senator Grassley has
subpoenaed the background docs) I think you will see a rapid improvement in relations.
pavel , Russia made
its choices. The onus is not on the US to pacify Russia with any standard of proof that it
may find convincing. Its up to the US authorities to interpret the Russian actions as being
either confrontational or friendly. Russia has no say over it.
The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self
defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did
not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national
debt.
It is testimony to the gross malfeasance of American media and pols (both sides but
especially Ds like both idiotic Clintons) that America has no working relationship with
Russia. The good news, once again in time Trump will be proved right.
I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real
influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real
proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything
significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it
appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that
"Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton
campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke.
But apparently this group went over there and acted as if the American people are
outraged. No, dishonest Democrat hacks and never-Trump Republicans inside the Beltway are
obsessed with it, because they hate the outcome of the election and want to discredit Trump.
But they've been fishing for a year and a half and can't find anything, despite furiously
leaking every innuendo they can, that turns out to be a false smear against Trump and
completely falls apart on inspection.
The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved
relations.
"If Russia can't be trusted to respect the borders of its neighbors, we can't have good
relations."
Says who? Citizen of a country which invaded 100+ countries since 1890, including Russia
twice? Learn how to respect borders and sovereignity or others yourself. Otherwise it is not
going to end well for you.
Given your namesake, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. My point is that
now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries. The past is the past. This is
just practical reality. We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism.
Again, because of your namesake. If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot
improve.
"My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries."
Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination
but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics.
US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this
way at least since Truman administration.
'This is just practical reality."
Exactly. And reality is that US stirs up troubles all over the world, including sphere of
vital interests of Russia like Ukraine.
"We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism."
Russian expansionism? Oh please, there never was any at all. Its been EXACTLY Europe which
hundreds of times tried to expand into Russia. The only way Russia expanded over centuries
was by defeating and absorbing those who tried to conquer Russia first. If western degenerate
elites will not learn this important lesson, of cource Russia will defeat and absorb the
west. It will be civilizational self defense.
You better leave Russia alone, and stop meddling in its business.
" If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve."
Russia does not need any improvement in relations with the west. At all. Over centuries we
learned that force is only language you barbarians do understand. You can not be reasoned
with. That is why we will always keep you at the gunpoint. And out gun will always be bigger
than yours.
If you are, presumably, Russian, it doesn't sound as if your government shares your
mindset. Which is good. I can tell you that the American people do not "seek global
domination". And European nations basically have no military to speak of, so the idea that
they would expand into Russia is ridiculous. You are very much stuck far in the past. In the
modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism and the rising economic power of China,
the US and Russia, as allies, would be an insurmountable bulwark. To the extent there would
be "global domination", it would be mutual.
As imperfect as our goverment is, it still orders of magnitude more intelligent and
competent than yours. Especialy when it comes to geopolitics. Russia always plays chess,
while your nations can`t handle checkers nowadays.
"American people do not "seek global domination""
Every people has government which it deserves. So do not try to shift blame to your
government as if you are not responsible for it. You gave them mandate.
"European nations basically have no military to speak of"
Nice excuse to expand NATO east it was, wasn`t it? So much for this "Russian expansionism"
B-S.
"so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous"
Sorry, but we are not buying that. NATO heavily expanded east breaking all past promises.
NATO now tries to sиck in even Ukraine. So please, we are not going to just sit idle
and watch how your goverments loom another 1812 or 1941.
" You are very much stuck far in the past"
Because we have memory. Do not take us for idlots who was born yesterday.
" In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism "
Which your goverment created and keeps massively supporting. Oh yes we know that better
than you can imagine.
"rising economic power of China"
Nothing wrong with rising economic power of China.
", the US and Russia, as allies,"
US and Russia are not allies.
"To the extent the would be "global domination", it would be mutual."
Russia seeks no global domination. It just wants to be left completely alone on its
backyard and mainland which has size of a planet.
You have plenty of knowledge of history, but no wisdom. I did not say the US is blameless
in the continued conflicts. What I said is that both governments have shown short
sightedness, and are stuck in the past - and you provide an extreme example of someone stuck
in the past.
You have also said numerous things that are not true, but it's not worth the time to
argue. You should go out for a walk, breathe some fresh air and relax.
Yes. Our government used to be naive enough to trust west and expect it to live up their
promises. And yours by poking the Bear in every possible way. When you poking sleeping Bear
with a short sight and shorter stick, do not complain whole situation exploding into your
face.
"and are stuck in the past "
No. Only your government stuck in its past, past dreams about "the end of history" and
unrestrained global domination. Russia exactly learned from the past and moved on, that is
why your elites are panicking trying to hold on to their sweet illusions.
If you had more wisdom and less hostility, you would see that what I'm saying is more
favorable to you than you think. The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for Russia to join
NATO. Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. But the continual back
and forth of spats been the US, Europe and Russia prevents it. I'm talking about a bigger,
more positive vision of the future, and you can only see small bitterness about the past.
Sane people want peace and prosperity. You do not seem to be one of them.
"The ideal outcome, ultimately, world be for Russia to join NATO."
The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for NATO to join Russia.
Perfectly without Russia making it the hard way.
"Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. "
Look up what does sarcasm means.
"more positive vision of the future"
Russia has only two allies, its army and fleet. - Tsar Alexander III.
Today its also RuASF and SRF. We do not need any more allies than that. You choose if you
want to be or enemy. It was not Russia who started all this mess.
I've seen Putin talk about this, on video. He was not being sarcastic. You are an extreme
example of the mindset I'm criticizing, on both sides. The people of both of our countries
are not served by it, at all. It's a useless waste of energy and resources.
For any native Russian speaker who has even slightest idea on what happening during
historic period he was talking about his sarcasm was clear and transparent. The very idea of "Russia joining NATO" is an insult.
" The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all."
We had no choice but to arm ourselves. You however always had. Russia and the USSR used to
lend you a hand with an olive branch many times. You choosen to spit on it.
What is the ultimate outcome of your mindset? Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? You
can't see any better solution?
Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with
you. If you actually cared about the Russian people, you would not use that name.
We will not fire it first, but if it will ever come to this, Russia has all means it needs
to win it.
"You can't see any better solution?"
Yes, accept the idea that we are simply not interested in playing your ball. And we are
against you playing your ball on our lawn too. So figuratively speaking, we need you to get
lost from our horizon and never come back without an invitation. Your "civilization" reminds
me of jehovah`s whitness preachers annoying everybody with their nonsense. With the
difference that you tend to kill those who not agree to listen to your gospel.
"Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people."
See? Jehova's whitness mode on again. Sorry but he was not any kind of mass murderer, he
is ultimate hero for us Russians, and we do not need you to lecture us on our own history. We
can figure it out ourselves.
" Russia is attempting to subvert the process that stands at the very heart of the US
democratic system"
Still waiting for any real evidence, much less actual proof. As the calendar flips by.
What we've been told so far is that Hillary's $1B campaign was apparently helpless against
a few internet memes, which we're told were sponsored by the Russian government, without any
proof.
Russia is not going to unilaterally apologize for perceived influence in the US election.
Quite the contrary. Their tiny amount of influence will simply continue with tiny Facebook
purchases and commenters as well as RT coverage etc. becoming a permanent fixture of US
politics (if it wasn't before, which it likely was, but as long as Democrats were winning no
one in the media cared).
It shouldn't be hard for a US politician to win an election going up against this small
degree of influence which is probably less influential than that of other foreign countries
in America (Israel, Saudi and China come to mind). Hillary Clinton, however, was just that
awful of a candidate that she needed the whole system rigged for her just to get close. If
even one world power center was against her she couldn't win. One wasn't and she didn't.
Meanwhile Donald Trump's foreign policy is dangerous without Russian rapprochement. We are
antagonizing other rivals that in the past we have had to keep isolated from cooperating with
Russia (Iran, China).
This is what the Russians are waiting for Washington to realize. No current American
policy goal in the world can be achieved cheaply (less than an Iraq War level of engagement
and cost) without a working relationship with Russia. Our strategy becomes a binary trade
off- do we sacrifice our interests everywhere but Europe (Russia) or do we sacrifice them in
Europe for everywhere else?
My sense is that the Trump policy is a natural consequence of the Asian continent becoming
equal to Europe in economic might by 2020 (it already nearly is). We can no longer treat the
rest of the globe as ancillary to our objectives in Europe (although that is certainly our
habit now).
Whoever follows Trump will fall into this same strategic trap. Hemming in Russia is now
quite painful for Washington to accomplish. Ham fisted half measures don't work and bringing
to bear the full measure of our influence entails great sacrifice in areas equally or more
important.
None of the recent terror attacks in Europe and US have been traced to Iran. Please stop
beating the war drum against this country, chances are you will lose again.
Iran is a #1 perceived threat to Israel, and a sponsor to Hezbollah. Beyond Hezbollah
support there is nothing that qualifies Iran as a sponsor of terrorism
Allie, is your worldview formed solely by mainstream media? Have you tried independent
media? You sure you get the other side's story? You know, you can't really claim you
comprehend the situation without hearing both sides?
I can't recall which one it was, but one of the chemical attacks has been proven to be
carried out by rebels. Also, a chemical attack has been proven to be a hoax. Like I said, I
can't recall all the details. If you are interested you are free to look them up.
Russia will never support the imperial ambitions of the USA. The current situation is a
result of a long chain of anti-Russian decisions by the US. The USA tries to assault the
Russian economy, its harming the people, destroying families and futures. No Russian citizen should
forget that.
NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and
geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the
country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia.
" Our NATO training base we are setting up in Ukraine will ensure the Russians do not
encroach. "
Adolf Hitler told something like that around 1944 when the Red Army was steam rolling his
goons and his Ostwall. You are even more deluded than him if you believe that few twirpy
little bases where your deуenerate men will get drunk and do local рrostitutes
can scare RussiaLOL
"Any drain on the Russian economy such as supporting the Crimea is less money for the
military."
Russian economy is booming since 2014. Russian reserves are growing. And Russian average
living standards are higher than US has it. But whatever makes you sleep at nights, keep
dwelling in russophrenic fantasies induced by your elites.
You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. It's not
even close. I guess you are spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda. The USA is by far the most
professional military in the world, and this military constantly foils Russian plans at
expansion.
"The USA is by far the most professional military in the world"
US has most expensive military in the world. And most inept. US never won any major war at
all and can not even deal with cave dwellers in Afganistan for 16 long years.
"and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion."
Russia has no plans for expansion. And if it ever will get one, nobody on this planet can
stop Russia from successfuly completing it.
Misinformed. Not a verifiable source. The USA has won plenty of wars, including the war to
topple the taliban in Afghanistan. Saying otherwise is nothing more than a talking point of
Russian propaganda. I've seen you say in other posts Russia will eventually reclaim Kiev Rus,
so which one is it? Try not contradicting yourself when debating educated people. You will
lose credibility. Russia literally just expanded to take the Crimea. They tried to expand into
Afghanistan, so you'd think you would have more respect for the USA effort there. Hightailed
it out of there after those goat herders whooped that @ss huh?
You won over the all powerful state of Grenada. Give you that.
Whooped the Taliban? After 16 years you're still stuck there and Trump adding more troops
to America's longest war to date. How long more to beat the goat herders, in your honest
opinion?
Stuck there? We could leave anytime we wanted. If the taliban took control of the country
again we could topple them again. Reconstructing a tribal society is not the same as fighting
a war. The war was over before it started. Unfortunately some people from our side are
benefiting from the status quo, and so allow it to persist. It is a drain on the country, but
not to the point that I'd call it losing a war. Not even close. Would you rather be in some
skyscraper in NYC or some cave in Baluchistan?
The development and production of new weapon systems is the most efficient way to advance
the technology and, in this way, the economic productivity. All the technological
breakthroughs which provided the current prosperity were financed by the governments with
absolutely non-commercial purpose. Therefore, the fact that Russia finally started developing
new weapon systems is quite promising for its future economic progress.
They are spending about 5% of GDP on their military, not counting intelligence agencies
and secret police and the money going towards the "rebels" in Ukraine. For a nation with the
domestic issues of Russia, it's quite a lot. Russia's oligarchs aren't spending that money
because it's a good use of the budget, they're doing it because they need the military to
distract the Russian public abroad and crush opposition at home. It's a sign of weakness, not
strength.
You don't seem to disagree with my point. Developing new weapon system is much more useful
for the economic development than production of consumer goods.
Who's buying? Russia's list of allies is small, many of their new weapon systems are quite
pricey, and that's all technology the US had years ago. And when it comes to low quality,
high quantity guns they are now competing with China.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Technological development is a
strategic project, it is ridiculous to discuss it commercially. Private business would have
never paid for the development of jet engines, laser, computer, nuclear reactor and internet.
They are parasites using the technology developed on the taxpayers money for commercial
purpose.
Concerning the customers: the US are still buying the Russian rockets. The Saudis and
Turkey have recently bought anti-aircraft defence systems. Avoid discussing what is beyond
you competence scope.
My, my, someone is feeling tense. Technological development is certainly helpful. It's
less helpful, however, if your competitors are there a few years before you. No enterprise
exists in a vacuum. If the primary strategic objective in Russia's development of technology
is in order to sell it, they will have to arrive there ahead of the US and others. Given
Russia's current situation, that seems... unlikely.
Hmm... I once read a Stratfor's report on the subject I actually know - it was about
business development in Islamic republics of Russia, and at the time I was one of the
analysts in Investment Promotion Agency of Bashkortostan.
The report was strait idiotic - a crazy mince of facts and fiction. I'm pretty sure now these
dudes are in business of making propaganda and have nothing to do with the truth but to turn
it into half-truths.
There is no proof because it didn't happen. The US media was heavily invested in trying to
get Hillary elected (they were even sending her debate questions in advance) - and needed a
scapegoat (the terrible Russians) for her loss. I think the truth will eventually come
out.
The truth has come out - besides having zero evidence of Russian government involvement,
there was no internet transfer of data from the DNC servers, its was a local leak. As you
probably know, DNC didn't allow FBI access to the servers, and instead hired a private firm
to conclude that it was Russian hacking (the zero-evidence conclusions of this private firm
were later used in intelligence agencie's reports). But nobody is listening to this, because
Russiagate is just so beneficial to so many actors.
"Hacking the election". Could you define what that means and present a single shred of
evidence of it? Or we simply follow the Goebelsian "A lie you keep repeating becomes the
truth.."
In the mid 70s, Vladimir Putin and the Russians began the systematic depopulation of
Detroit so that 40 years later Donald J Trump would win Michigan. It's true, ask a
Dimocrat.
Maybe you might want to take a gander at this:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
But I guess when you're in total denial, any amount of "proof" will be insufficient. All I'd
say to the Russians is, keep it going.
bahaha That's the proof?! That's the best you can come up with? You fail to see that it is
people like you because of your toxic hatred and dogmatism that jump on any crazy theory to
support your hacking claims. The most probable underlying reason-excluding racist
russophobia? You just can't fathom why Trump won. That's the side-effect of reading the
coastal elites narratives instead of focusing on what has been happening on "fly-over
country" for a couple of decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you serious? You ask for proof, it is provided, and then you just go on pretending it
wasn't? You do realize that with all the resources and technology at the disposal of our
government, the notion of tracking the origins of certain content on the web is not at all
far fetched. And why would any American patriot not be alarmed at the fact that the Russian
government, the offspring of the USSR, our rival from the Cold War period, was involved in a
concerted effort to target voters with information that was proven to be false. This is
information warfare, and you would respond by rewarding the culprit. I hope you don't have
kids. Maybe you Greeks ought to learn how to run your country before commenting on
international affairs.
"You ask for proof, it is provided" Ahh..No, it wasn't. The only thing provided was a
report by US intelligence services-the last entity one could call a neutral party to
this-that basically said, "Trust us, we tell you the truth".
Again, until a shred of evidence is provided, the whole "russiagate" is BS of the first
order. A fact that even mainstream commentators in the US reluctantly begin to accept. e.g.-
"Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact"
https://www.thenation.com/a...
As for Greece, thank you for your advice considering us running our country. If you adhered
to the same principle of not being involved in the affairs of our nation-you helped install a
junta in Greece in 1967, you still interfere in our politics-we would refrain from
criticising your foreign policy that has a bad habit of sticking its dirty fingers
everywhere.
I see you buy into the conspiracy theories. In terms of global development, peace and
prosperity, Russia is not on the same page as the USA. One simply has more credibility than
the other. This is for historical reasons which you needlessly discard. Either way, it is not
just an intelligence report. Try browsing the web a bit. Finding Russian misinformation is
not difficult at all. Facebook, a private entity with no dog in this fight, has verified
Russian interference.
I'm sorry about the junta. A part of history I'm not familiar enough with. My
understanding was this was part of the fight against communism. The ends don't justify the
means, but our interests must be protected. Sometimes that means others go under the boot. We
are able to do that because our house is in order, and we are the most powerful country there
ever was. You may hate the fact, but it's the simple truth. No other nation has the same
ability to project power. Intelligent minds wouldn't disagree.
Lol..You simply cherish raw power-just like the naz.s did for that matter. Of course the
US is powerful, the most powerful country in terms of power projection. But being powerful
does not make one right. Your founding fathers remembered that but you have long forgotten
it, corrupted by power.
You actually believe your own megalomanic and delusional propaganda about being morally
"exceptional" with a mandate to do as you like. You are as exceptional as the other empires
before you were and headed to the same direction-decline and fall.
We Greeks have been around for a few millennia. We had our fair share of fights and helped
destroy some empires as well-the Persians, the Ottomans. We also had the distinction of
having our own empire twice-a feat very very few people can claim.
Today on your struggle with Russia no matter what the power balance might look (and it keeps
shifting on Russia's favor), Russia is morally right. But even excluding morality and Russia
and what not, and looking at the raw facts the fate of your Empire seems sealed.
A favorite metric of your money-obsessed society is GDP. In 1945 the US GDP was equal to
almost 50% of the World GDP. In 1990 it was about 25%. Today it is close to 16% and in
relation to the World GDP it keeps falling. Your military is in need of modernization but
more importantly it simply cannot bare the costs of maintaining a global presence, much less
engage in numerous conflicts.
But I think you already know those facts, that is why you shield your argument behind the "we
are the most powerful blah, blah, blah".
As I said, all this is not knew, even the creation of scapegoats-Russia, N.Korea, Iran ,China
etc are typical of every failing Empire, we 've seen this before.
I have a nice Greek term for you, it is a fundamental pillar of our way of viewing the world.
It's called Hubris and the US is so full of it it can't see past its own nose.
I don't cherish power, just understand and respect it. And the USA is full of it, and
admittedly full of hubris too. I wouldn't be quite so certain that the empire is over, but
agreed overstretched. Adjustments are being made, though only time will tell if it is too
little too late. Your reading of history is accurate, but history doesn't predict the future.
It simply provides proper context for discussion. Your entire comment seems more ideological
than logical. Where did I claim exceptionalism? I apologized about the junta, said it wasn't
justified, but acknowledged the underlying dynamics. Your response was to compare me to the
nazis? Wow. I will say this. You think Russia is "right". Good for you. I think it's quite a
bit more complicated. I certainly think the socioeconomic and political systems in be USA are
far superior to that of Russia, not inherently, but because of the institutions that have
been created. Russia has chosen to emphasize nationalism versus the USA where individualism
is still the prevailing ideological force. Nationalism was what the nazis promoted. Luckily I
don't share your assessment about the global balance of power. The USA, land of the free and
home of the brave, will continue to promote its interests abroad for quite some time to
come.
I don't know about "us Russians" because no matter how unfathomable it might seem to you,
not everyone even mildly supportive of Russia is a Russian. I am Greek and I consider Russia
a friendly state, with ties going back 1000 years, a state which is wrongfully demonized by
the Western elites. You claim that everyone speaking vs Putin is targeted somehow. Obivously
you have never been to Russia or spoke to Russians or have the vaguest clue of public
discourse in Russia both online and on the street.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I asked for a single proof of "Russia hacking the election".
Or anyone "hacking the election" for that matter. I did not ask any proof about Russia's
internal politics or whether it conforms to your hypocritical and selective notions of
democracy, ones that you care not apply to a host of tyranical nations you openly
support.
Oh, what a brilliant idea you got there..The one accused being responsible for providing
evidence of his innocence while the accuser having no need to present evidence to support his
case. Just relying on-"but it's Russia! It's evil and all that s..t!"
And neither Putin nor any Russian official ever made such an admission. Hillary lost because
she was a terrible candidate whose own actions fueled a populist backlash against her and the
Washington consensus policies she espoused.
So, you presume that russia is guilty because you don't have any proof of its innocence or
culpability when it comes to assert if there were any interference in America's
elections?
KingOn2K your assertion and the greatest press in the universe repeating continuously that
Russians did it without providing any shred of evidence after more than one and half year of
investigations (Sorry I forgot, they the press do mention that our $100 Billion +
intelligence agencies say so the same guys who got us in the mess in Iraq good luck believing
these guys). In the meanwhile we have an opioid epidemic and crumbling infrastructure.
Mrm Penumathy maybe,
just maybe, it might dawn on Russia that the US is not in any way hinged to Russia. The
status quo would do just fine. Apart from denials and raising a non-sequitur like Iraq the
arguments for a reset don't look convincing. It is always amusing to see arguments on
relative economic strengths coming from Russians when 68% of their exports come from oil
!!
The reason Hillarity was stumbling and falling during the campaign is because Vladimir
Putin and the Russians spiked her GERITOL(R)(TM). It's true, ask a Dimocrat.
In order to become a successful economy as the US needs to have 20 trillion foreign debt?
The Russian economy is not so dependent on oil as it is told on CNN ..
Russia is not bad at earning rocket engines for the USA (rd180) and delivering American
astronauts to the ISS ;)
Economy of Russia - GDP rank 12th (nominal) / 6th (PPP) (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
It was only a matter of time before Google and its subsidiaries (most notably
YouTube) would jump on the "Russia hacked the election" narrative concocted by
Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., (Google's parent company), Eric Schmidt
was after all advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.
What took Schmidt and Google execs so long to join in on the never ending
litigation of the US presidential election, that Hillary lost almost one year ago?
Via The Daily Caller...
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company
Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary
Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with
the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email,
a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton
campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.
The indicted husband-and-wife team of former IT aides to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz sat directly across from each other at the defendants' table in federal court Friday in
Washington, D.C., but refused to look at each other.
Even as they are co-defendants in a U.S. case, Imran Awan's own wife, Hina Alvi, has become
the latest person to accuse him of fraud, filing papers against him in Pakistani court,
according to Pakistani news channel ARY.
The couple were in U.S. court to face bank fraud charges related to sending money to
Pakistan around the time they learned they were under investigation for abuses related to their
work managing IT for members of Congress. Awan was arrested at Dulles Airport in July
attempting to board a flight to Pakistan.
Wasserman Schultz, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, and other House
Democrats have vigorously defended Awan, claiming the Capitol Police might be drumming up
charges
out of
Islamaphobia .
Alvi was arraigned Friday on four felony counts, and Awan, who has already been arraigned,
requested that his GPS monitoring bracelet be taken off -- citing the fact that his wife was in
America as the reason he was not a flight risk.
Yet the couple entered and left the court separately, have different lawyers, and Awan's
lawyer told the judge that the husband and wife are staying "in a one-bedroom apartment and
then also a house."
Pakistani legal papers published
by the news channel show Alvi recently accused Awan of illegally marrying another woman,
and of fraud. "My husband Imran Awan son of Muhammad Ashraf Awan, committed fraud along with
offence of polygamy," she charges in the papers.
Hina's U.S. lawyer, Nikki Lotze, did not dispute the account. "I don't see how that's
newsworthy," Lotze told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The Pakistani legal petition named as
the second wife is a woman who records show told Virginia police she felt like Awan was keeping
her "like a slave."
Awan, his wife and two brothers -- all previously on the payroll of House Democrats --
became subjects of a Capitol Police investigation last year after investigators concluded they
were submitting falsified invoices for equipment and
had transferred "massive" data off a House server. After he was banned from the House
network, Awan left a laptop with the username RepDWS in a Capitol Hill phone booth.
Although
The Washington Post has reported that investigators found that Awan and his relatives made
unauthorized access to a congressional server 5,400 times, Wasserman Schultz has said concern
about the matter was the
stuff of the "right-wing media circus fringe."
Awan and Alvi have been charged with bank fraud involving moving money to Pakistan, but they
have not been charged with crimes related to their work, and the other family members have not
been charged at all. Awan's attorney used Friday's hearing to argue that he "very strongly"
wanted to block prosecutors
from using evidence they found in the Capitol Hill phone booth.
The Pakistani legal motion filed by Alvi states: "A few months ago I got apprised of the
fact that my husband has contracted second marriage secretly, fraudulently and without my
consent with Mst. Sumaira Shehzadi Alias Sumaira Siddique Daughter of Muhammad Akram r/o
Township, Lahore. The second marriage of my husband is illegal, unlawful and without
justification."
"The court has recorded the testimonies of the applicant and other witnesses," the Pakistani
news outlet reported.
... ... ...
The Awan family had access to the full digital files of 45 House members and
their staffs, but Democrats have said they don't believe he would abuse that access, despite a
host of financial red flags, including financial ties to an
Iranian fugitive and money sent to a Pakistani police officer.
In a civil case this year, Awan's stepmother Samina Gilani accused Abid Awan, who was also
on the House payroll, of stealing a $50,000 life insurance policy, and said Awan used his
employment in Congress to intimidate people.
"Imran Awan introduces himself as someone from US Congress or someone from federal
agencies," she charged. He "threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police
[he] will do harm to me and my family members back in Pakistan and one of my cousins here in
Baltimore."
"... None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July. ..."
"... The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ." ..."
"... The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony. ..."
"... The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. ..."
"... That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. ..."
"... So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages. ..."
Back in 1835, Samuel F.B. Morse (who went on to invent the telegraph and the Morse Code), wrote
a book about a plot to overthrow the American republic. The conspiracy, Morse wrote, was well-funded,
highly secretive, and hatched in Vienna by members of the The St. Leopold Foundation, which had dispatched
cells of Jesuit missionaries to the U.S. to forcibly convert the nation to Roman Catholicism. This
was no small intrigue: The plot's leaders, as Morse meticulously catalogued, were Austrian diplomat
Klemens von Metternich, Ferdinand V of Hungary, and (of course) Pope Gregory XVI. "It is high time
that we awakened to the apprehension of danger,"
Morse wrote .
What is shocking about this nonsense is not that Morse actually believed it, but that millions
of other Americans did too. Morse's book seeded the rise of the nativist
"Know-Nothing" party , whose goal was to curb immigration, root out Catholicism, and return America
to its protestant ideals. In essence, they were the America-firsters of the nineteenth century. The
Know-Nothings swept into office in Chicago, were strong in Massachusetts and, in 1856, nominated
a national ticket (Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson), for the presidency; they tallied nearly
900,000 votes, one-quarter of those cast. "I know nothing but my country, my whole country and nothing
but my country," they chanted.
Historians have since excavated the Morse plot with relish, if only as a way to better understand
a nation that, from time to time, enjoys being scared witless.
Before the Know-Nothings there were the Anti-Masons, a political movement that warned of a takeover
by secretive apron-wearing do-gooders who met for god-knows-why. And before that Americans were warned
about witches named Dorothy, Rebecca, Martha, and Rachel, dancing in New England's forests. Some
120 years after Morse, in 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter dubbed this "the paranoid style in American
politics" -- a paradigm-shifting essay that catalogued a raft of intrigues peopled by witches, Illuminati,
Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Jewish bankers, Bilderbergers and, in Hofstadter's time, communist dupes
doing Moscow's bidding. America's enemies might be unseen, but they were everywhere.
"In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship," Hofstadter
wrote, "is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it
managed to survive at all."
None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer),
over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable
baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is
rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people
or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss.
The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that
it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying
on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring
the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July.
The historical "for instance" in this is well-documented: during the 1960 presidential campaign,
John Kennedy insisted that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in ballistic missile production.
There was a growing and dangerous "missile gap" Kennedy claimed, placing the nation in great peril.
Dwight Eisenhower, he said, had been derelict in not acknowledging the threat. An independent study
commission issued a report that confirmed the fear and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it credence:
We are "turning out missiles like sausages," he claimed. As it turns out, Kennedy was right: there
was a missile gap, but not in a way that he thought -- we had plenty, while they had none (a later
CIA report speculated that, actually, they might have had three, maybe). Years later, Kennedy's claim
looked downright foolish: the problem for the Russians wasn't that they couldn't make missiles (they
eventually did, and plenty of them), but that they couldn't make sausages -- which cost them their
empire. The same kinds of claims were retailed by U.S. intelligence services about Russia's allies:
a 1987 CIA fact book said that East Germany's GDP per capita was higher than West Germany's,
a claim so ludicrous that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan dismissed it to a panel of CIA officers
with a legendary quip: "I know a Berlin taxi driver who could have told you that wasn't true."
The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the
1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief
of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired
commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by
James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries
in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White
House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts
of the world "
are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ."
The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend
the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse),
that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of
the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are,
but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict"
(that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains
a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism,
doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these
claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey said that Mexico was in a state of collapse back in 2009, a claim contradicted
by then-Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. More recently, and before the recent earthquake
shook Mexico City, the collapsing Mexican government offered to help provide aid to Texans victimized
by Hurricane Harvey. It's a wonder they would think of us as the walls were coming down around them.
Then too, if Mexico is really on the verge of collapse, shouldn't the administration be doing something
about it -- perhaps we should appeal to the international community to provide the Mexican government
with low interest loans, or maybe we should deploy a U.S. aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Mexico.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the claim is Morse-like: designed to frighten us, perhaps, into building
a wall as a barrier to keep immigrants who are not pouring over the border from pouring over the
border.
The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that
Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence
Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd
seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. But Stoltenberg went further,
inviting Russia to be a part of the Afghanistan peace process -- a strange request to a nation
that a top U.S. general claims is helping the enemy. Even so, the claim was repeated just this last
week by Defense Secretary James Mattis, who added Iran to the growing list of Taliban allies. Of
course, Nicholson and Mattis might be absolutely right, but they're saying so doesn't make it so.
Then too (we shuffle our feet, look at our shoes, mumble to ourselves), the Taliban's best friend
in Afghanistan isn't Russia or Iran, it's Pakistan -- our friend.
That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's
nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us?
Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of
what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result
is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks
significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed
off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection
system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its
shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke
down -- and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it's a threat. But Russia has many of the
same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP --
just behind Panama.
The world has problems, big problems but it is not going to hell. Here's what going to hell looks
like. In the autumn of 1941, Europe was under the domination of a genocidal regime that had extended
its murderous policies through all of Europe and whose armies were headed towards Moscow. In Asia,
large swathes of China and all of Southeast Asia were occupied by Japanese militarists. The two,
with Italy, had formed an axis and controlled significant portions of the globe. Their enemies were
teetering on the edge of defeat. The world was going to hell, alright, but the U.S. had yet to get
into the war.
But that's not the worst of it. During the early morning hours of September 26, 1983, Lt. Col.
Stanislav Petrov was notified by his computer system that the U.S. had launched five intercontinental
ballistic missiles at Russia. Petrov sat there for a moment, when he should have been on the telephone
to his superiors. After several moments he concluded that the warning just didn't make sense. Why
would the U.S. launch only five missiles at Russia, when everyone in the Soviet military supposed
they would launch a barrage. "The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds," he later
told the BBC, "staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it." Petrov ignored
the warning --
and may well have prevented a nuclear holocaust.
So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when
Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under
every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages.
Now, as then, we have two choices: we can either embrace our fears and shake in our boots, or
we can tell the sky-is-falling crowd what Samuel F.B. Morse's friends told him all the way back in
1835.
Get a grip.
Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America:
The Making of Douglas MacArthur. His next book, The Pentagon's Wars, will be released in October.
He tweets @markperrydc
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by
CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from
being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an
enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that
role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating
with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think
the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and
Russia.
Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles
for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to
invade Syria and to bomb Iran.
Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea.
Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base
on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.
The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign
policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism.
This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there
also is the material interests of the military/security complex.
Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing
Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's
borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence
that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible
than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.
Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election
or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic
Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.
These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of
Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that
Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute
media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing
Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/
The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?
Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see
Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious
dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says
is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia.
Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard
for evidentiary standards."
In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for
the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans
sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that
they are sophisticated and in the know.
What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia
are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?
This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false
accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime
criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to
military attack.
Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can.
I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington
is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such
planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with
the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.
What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly
filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder
as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because
the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about
the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream
of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?
If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to
be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO
cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian
government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening
day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude
other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?
Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.
I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most
extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the
life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question
the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK,
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by
their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.
Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.
Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?
US Congressman
says Julian Assange "has absolute proof" Russia did not meddle in US elections
(Video)
Julian
Assange can prove hacks were not by Russia with 100% certainty.
Last year's DNC hack that took over via the Gmail account of campaign chairman John Podesta
provided a clear example of how important added protections are, but many people don't take
advantage because they can seem complicated to setup. Just a few months many users were bombarded
with a Google Drive-hosted phishing attack, and that won't be the last one.
The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:
GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the
same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by
Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site.
The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate
and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate
committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.
SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the
Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically
derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of
understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to
democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.
(...)
GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on
Twitters briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear
that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian
activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust
investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures
campaign..."
Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen's claims,
Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House , to
talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:
GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally
clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.
WALLACE: It's worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst
stereotype of a Republican political organization. They're reactive, theyre opaque, they're
defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They're totally lawyered
up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they're all about the
public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, its basically like someone got mugged in your
backyard and their position is: well, it's not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on
which the house was built, not our problem.
The MSM does not report news. They provide entertainment for their demographic base of
couch riding spectators. Controversy, salaciousness and division increase the amount of
eyeballs, which allow these channels of distraction to charge exorbitant fees to advertisers
who are selling crap most don't need or want. It's all just "chewing gum" for the eyes.
"This isn't new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions
in the US [for years]... "
So it's the Russians that have caused racial tensions in the U.S., who knew? Racial voting
patterns in this country are almost the same today as they were before the Civil War. In any
Presidential election, for instance, 95% of blacks vote Democrat, regardless of who is
running, and over 80% of Christian Fundamentalists vote Republican, regardless of who is
running.
During this last Presidential election, if you flipped the State of Virginia with the
State of Pennsylvania, the election turned on the Mason-Dixon line. Unless the Russians can
be blamed for the racism this nation was born into, it's probably absurd to blame today's
racial tensions on them.
"Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people
to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads."
Shame on them for trying to get people to get a job!
How long until they declare antifa is a Russian sponsored terrorist org.? I know it is not
time yet but once the violence of antifa generates general rejection by the middle class due
to fear - perhaps then they will throw them under the bus. And use antifa as justification
for oppressive policies/laws.
Thinking about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent really opened my eyes to what
democratization of the media could do. Why are we having this conversation about 2016, and
not 2008 or 2012? I have a number of theories about this. I think the endgame here is to
create a Great Firewall for major social media platforms to keep people from finding out
certain truths (I think you won't be hearing from Wikileaks, for example). It's a dark time,
and I'm sad we're here.
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwn ... I don't do social media full stop.
So any government control mechanism actually fails and if anything with all the proactive
advertising, fake news and now mostly junk content I know people who are dumping it prefering
alternative forms of communication ... like talking to real people.
I never knew ... me dear old mum well retired now curses google and facebook with all the
shit they come out with.
Mwhahahahaha ... it's spreading.
To the point just refuse to talk to people who use social media, let them keep their
dumbed down universe to themselves.
MSNBC is a network of wackos. So are the ideas they promote as well as the usual suspects
they interview. No one takes this network or the nonsense they spew seriously.
Sure, lets invent another huge government bureaucracy in order to maintain the monopoly of
a dying, legacy media dinosaur !!!!
Through censorship no less
Its fucking both pathetic and laughable.... the MSM is a Dead Media Walking....
You think Bezos wanted to buy WaPo to enhance its journalistic character? No fucking
chance... he took it over in order to save a mouthpiece of the elite that was ready to go
TU..... for a huge Qid Pro Quo I might add ( to wit, you may recall that shortly after Bezos
took over WaPo, Amazon was suddenly given the ok to accept EBT, with not a peep of protest or
a question from Congress. So now, we have welfare queens ordering online and getting wildly
expensive Amazon Fresh deliveries IN THE FUCKING GHETTO.... ISNT THIS COUNTRY GREAT !!!!)
What cannot be controlled or co-opted by these fucks must somehow be "regulated" or
eliminated.
WELL FUCK THAT!!! Keep stacking pms, lead and brass
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into
U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians
attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election,
officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this
extraordinary claim.
This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees
– that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential
election is now in doubt.
Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that
this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":
MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant
that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have
now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland
Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election.
. .targeting their election infrastructure."
They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging
the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting
that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as
our President?"
So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall
apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the
original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its
election systems targeted by Russian hackers:
The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there
was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had
anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator,
Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."
Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the
named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:
Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were
an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.
But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over
again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based
on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest
scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.
The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively
chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time
in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony
Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:
Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid,
causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have
to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to
publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the
internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted
sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?
Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all
based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near?
Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that
casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune
retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the
huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial,
unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch
and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?
And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each
time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread
them say little to nothing when it is debunked.
None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that
Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by
the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states
that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention,
have now been repudiated.
But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails
when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion
as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.
Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma
– it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates
numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded
any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election),
even if they end up being debunked.
A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter
more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story
is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic
national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former
acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the
founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled
(this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and
David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper)
– calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war
with Russia").
The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic:
they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate
an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter
accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their
lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."
They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff
and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand,
as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed
by the nation's least trustworthy sources.
But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility
and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite
circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin
aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during
the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions
of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.
That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the
biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike
the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.
No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must
overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see
evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that
is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence
for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least
adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for
claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).
Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate
as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets,
have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and
reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?
"... Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what? ..."
"... The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous. ..."
"... Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. ..."
"... This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. ..."
"... It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama. ..."
"... All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia. ..."
"... Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons. ..."
At some point, you would like to believe that this stuff is so over the top, it would be
self-defeating. Are there any accurate polls of what the general public thinks of all this?
If it weren't for the threat of a thermonuclear Armageddon, it would only mean more resources
wasted on the war party and less for social security, etc. Russia is not going anywhere, and
I believe is beyond our ability to harm it, unless said nuclear holocaust ensues. Our
attempts to isolate Russia are doomed to fail.
Sam F , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Yes, the charade is doomed to fail to persuade, let alone hurt Russia, but will succeed in
creating the foreign monster needed by tyrants to demand domestic power. In our modern witch
hunts we all know that there are no witches – the whole performance is a declaration of
tyranny over public information, a statement to the common man that he must follow his master
the mass media, he must avow that he is the slave of the rich, and pretend that the declared
enemy is his own. He must praise the flag betrayed by his masters the oligarchy.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:08 am
Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost
exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power?
I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything
but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch.
Is that ironic or what?
Abe , September 29, 2017 at 11:26 pm
During a discussion with The Nation concerning the documentary series The Putin
Interviews, first broadcast in June 2017, Academy Award winning film producer Oliver Stone
addressed the hacking allegations and questions of influence on the American election:
The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel
has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence
through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American
elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to
criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous.
Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the
military-industrial-complex. Its beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on
military.
If there is any comfort to be found in any of this, all this blaming Russia on everything
and anything is getting all to outrageous as each day goes by. In other words the MSM
overkill on this Russia-Gate silliness, is losing its credibility, with all this nonsense and
coverage saying so.
eole , September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, here in Europe, there are still a lot of countries
which blindly follow whatever the USA think or do, particularly with NATO which would so like
to step by mistake of course across the Baltic and Polish borders.
I must say that I
admire
the strength of Putins nerves. How long will it last? Also there are elections next year, and
we can observe that Washington is arleady trying to plant seeds of revolution. I dont think
it'll work. According to Xavier Moreau a French political observer living in Moscow, Putin
enjoys a popularity that lots of foreign politicians would be envy!
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:22 am
I wish eole, likeminded Europeans and us in the U.S. were to band together to protest, and
petition, our governments to stop with all this warring madness. From the Donbass, to Deir
Ezzor, and all the way across the globe to Seoul Korea, we the people for peace should stand
arm and arm to defy this ugly monster whos only goal is to marginalize us citizens with their
ultimate military strength towards having their ownership over all of the worlds precious
natural resources. All this to make a few bankers rich. Joe
mike k , September 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Money controls everything. ETHICS DOESNT STAND A CHANCE IN COMPETITION WITH MONEY.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WELCOME TO THE WONDERLAND OF Capitalism, where you can have
anything you want, if only you have the MOOLA! Souls for sale here – CHEAP!
Just sign here in blood, and have we got a deal for you….
Leslie F , September 28, 2017 at 7:51 pm
The only poll I know about was an internal Democratic Party poll showing that rank and
file Democrats resented the incessant Russia did it mantra as not responsive to their
concerns. I don't remember whether people believed it or not but they definitely through it
was getting too much attention from Democratic leaders at the expense of more important
issues.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm
This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to
annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of
seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. It
will serve the Democrates well, for allowing themselves for being used as a tool for the
Shadow Government.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:07 am
Joe – This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is
going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the
majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the
presidency.
It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People
was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished
off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . .
. Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back
under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama.
All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the
People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of
Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party
of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones
– in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia.
The way the things are in the country, of all the bad options available, Trump probably is
the best to have – he can not make the case for more wars effectively, like the slick
politician Obama did.
Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an
interesting article on the Neocons.
Dave you are right. The reason I mentioned the Democrates was because they were the last
party that I can recall who did once stand for the we the people. My memory also can recall
how even when at their best the Democrates weren't all that great to living up to their
overrated motto. So what I was referring too in many ways doesnt exist, and some would say
never did. These presidents we all find fault with, in my mind are only front people for our
Shadow Government (look up YouTube of Kevin Shipp). In fact watching Trump turn over his
staff, and his redo of his campaign promises, is like seeing the Shadow Government take over
in real time. You and I Dave are most definitely living inside of the matrix. Thanks Dave for
moving this conversation along in the right direction. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 11:53 am
Yes Joe. There was lot of good in that old Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s –
my wife and I took part in the McGoverns campaign. And in those days, in old main street type
conservative Republicans, I found lot of good too. In fact, when I came to this country
during mid 1960s, the city council of Ann Arbor was Republican, and they were good people.
And now the city council of Ann Arbor is in Democratic Party hands – all Hillary
supporters, and Russia bashers too.
I wonder what they are teaching in these schools now. This is what this very effective
propaganda machine of this new age Edward Bernays is doing to the young minds and to the
public at large.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Dave you bring up the 1972 McGovern presidential run, and the way that all went down. I
quit voting after that all took a turn for the worst, and for the following next twenty years
I stayed away from the voting booth. That no doubt wasnt a smart way of dealing with my
disappointment, but at that time I thought it appropriate because I could see then that I
didnt necessarily agree with the majority of my fellow countrymen and woman. No big deal, I
just did what needed done to get my family food on the table. To be honest Dave, I still dont
know why I vote. Although you are right the Democrates arent in anyway much better than the
Republicans, and with that we all suffer. Joe
Laninya , September 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Quote: And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental
organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic
process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
Ha!ha! You know whats funny about this? Its that all the money poured into the NGOs in
Russia in the past quarter century that was intended to, not just meddle in, but to shape the
Russian political, social, and economic realities has, under Putins wise and delicate rule,
been squeezed into an ineffectual state of presence. And because their attempts on the ground
in real life have failed over there, a theatrical inversion of reality has to be created over
here.
Ah!ha!ha! This is SUCH an amazing movie. And, better when wearing 3-D glasses! Cant wait
to see how it ends.
Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 6:19 pm
Your right, Putin seems to out smart these clever American instigators every step of the
way. I will now take a knee for injustices committed against Blacks, and Native-Americans
(remember Dakota Access), and stay down on my knee a little while longer with the hope that
my beloved USA may come to its senses, and that my country will finally wise up.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:44 am
Joe,
I appreciate your taking a knee for injustices committed against certain of those who
share this continent with us English-speaking peoples (who seem to have have claimed it as
our own), as I have long appreciated the tone and substance of your comments on this
site.
So, Im gonna quibble (in a friendly way) with you on the idea that Putin out smarts
American instigators at every step. Ive been spying on that guy for about three years, now,
and Id say its just that hes playing a different game. One the American players dont
understand, and dont believe even exists or maybe theyve heard rumours of such a game, but
they think its mythical.
See: our people -- yours and mine: your beloved USA and my Canada, heirs of the British
Empire -- our people make war for fun and profit. Always have done. We rule the waves, and
privateering is our game.
Putins people, on the other hand, have occupied the crossroads at the centre of the major
overland trade routes (north-south as well as east-west) since ancient times, and, due to the
geography and the demographics, have been fighting off invaders from all direction the whole
time. Its a whole different game.
And, its a game VV Putin takes seriously, cause he has no other choice. After perestroika,
after the Harvard boys [did] Russia ( ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/
), that huge nation (11 time zones!) was on the brink of total collapse and dismemberment.
For the stability, security and prosperity of (what was left of) his people and the 1000-year
history of the nation, he just couldnt afford to make any mistakes or false steps.
For him and his team (Putin doesnt work alone by any stretch of the imagination), this
isnt a pissing contest. Its the life of their nation.
Whole different game.
I hope our countries wise up, too. Were really blowing it.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 1:46 am
There are two things here I see as interesting, and possibly crucial, laninya.
One, is the U.S. and Canada by the standards of a countrys age are fairly young. In fact
Russia got our countries beat by, probably would you say 4 fold? Anyway, our time at bat as
being an Empire of somekind would even be shorter by the standards of empire time. So for
America being stupid and young enough to be excused for at least this kind of uncontrolled
blind patriotism we have seen of late in the U.S., added to the total absence of attentioned
paid to all these American instigated wars, why us Americans are like distracted children in
a playground, so our youth is our only plead. I could be wrong, but this collective mindset
in our society here, makes me believe we need to do a lot of growing up in this nation, and
the world will be happy to throw the U.S. a coming of age party if peace is the prize.
The second matter is, is that I agree that Russia by having a defense oriented military
strategy is in better shape than like the U.S. having ourselves stretched out all over the
global network we have wove. You see I dont trust big, and Im leery of to much technology as
wellbut thats me. In fact, if a body existed like the UN who had some real juice were to laid
down some enforceable laws, I would then hedge towards them making nations have their
militaries situated more like the Russian Federation does.defensive. With the NFL in the news
so much these days this Good Defense thinking should make sense to no matter who stands or
kneels.
Lastly, the U.S. has already over spent itself on war, now the U.S. only needs to go on a
frantic rampage of somekind.lets hope it just boils down to rhetorical saber rattlings, and
the world laughs with us. Kim looks to be having a ball. I shouldnt have said that, but
sometimes a little humor lightens the reality.oh its very American to laugh when we should be
worried, but I digress..
Big isnt always better. You may look better in a $1,000. 00 suit than I do in my
$10,000.00 suit, and oh by the way these clothes we have on are still suits.
Nice conversation laninya. Joe
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:19 am
Ianinya – An excellent analysis. Right on the mark. Putin is not a dictator as they
malign him in the Media in The West. He is leading a team – very astute and shrewd
team. For Russia it is an existential struggle – a fight they can not lose. They have
been subjected to it during their entire History as you pointed out.
Americans – even our politicians and experts – do not have much understanding
of other peoples history – they do not understand Russia.
laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Dave,
Well, its interesting what a person can learn these days just sitting in a chair, poking
at a few buttons on a keyboard. Never in the history of the world have ordinary people had so
many resources at their disposal and so much information at their fingertips. Yet, your last
sentence still seems accurate.
Why is that? In the US and Canada, we do have experts who are very knowledgable about
other peoples history and culture, including Russias. But, for some reason or another, there
are times when we just collectively choose to sideline and ignore them. In the US you have
Stephen F. Cohen Jack Matlock, and Sharon Tennison, among others, who can speak intelligently
about Russia. In Canada we have the voices of Patrick Armstrong, Paul Robinson, and the
blogger Mark Chapman (The Kremlin Stooge). Armstrong and Robinson both come from a military
background, both also publish easily accessible blogs.
I believe it was thanks to a commenter over at the Kremlin Stooge that I discovered a
book, then newly available in English translation, titled Russia and Europe / The Slavic
Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Gremanic-Roman West by Nikolai Danilevskii,
originally published c.1868.
Let me show you a quote from that book. A hundred and fifty years ago, Danilevskii wrote
this:
It is still in fashion among us to attribute everything to our unfamiliarity with Europe, and
to its ignorance concerning Russia. Our press says nothing, at least until recently, but our
enemies slander us. How would poor Europe learn the truth? It is shrouded in fog and
befuddled. Risum teneatis, amici; or, as we say in Russian, it would make a chicken laugh, my
friends. How could Europe -- which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the
Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex solar systems to the structures of
microscopic organisms -- not know a thing about Russia? Such excuses -- ignorance, naivety,
and gullibility, as if we are talking about an innocent schoolgirl -- are laughable coming
from Europe, shrewd as a serpent.
Funny, eh?
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 8:37 pm
My comments have been in moderation for couple of hours, may be due to links to The Saker
I put in. I am posting it again without the links.
laninya,
The last paragraph in your comments, quotation from Danilevsky is very interesting. Yes,
you are right. There are quite a few people in academia and outside, like Stephen Cohen,
Matlock, and others. Matlock has been trying to calm the waters with his appearances on RT,
and a few other places, and also at the Valdai International discussion club forum. But these
people have no power.
Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign
policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons,
mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
You wrote about the Harvard Boys doing all this financial engineering on Russia during
1990s under that charlatan Yeltsin, who was in U.S. hands. I really thought The West has
finally finished Russia off – and that Russia can not recover in hundred years , as the
media was proclaiming here. Putin and his team has resurrected Russia once again – it
is almost a miracle. They – Russia – are not in good shape yet, but it seems like
they can defend themselves.
As you wrote, Russia, being at the cross roads, has faced invasions, and dangers
throughout its history – Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, under Tatar yoke for two centuries,
nomads from the steppes and Central Asia, Turks from the South, and from Caucasus warrior
tribes. From the West – Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and France.
Russia has been under constant existential threat through out its history, and so is today
under threat form U.S., and the rest of The West. Wests intervention in Syria for regime
change, and then Iran as target is all aimed at Russia. Russia had no other recourse but help
Syria against the Jihadis, armed and supported by The West.
But Syria still is not out of danger. There are some articles in the Saker today related
to it and Kurdistan issue. In Syria , it seems like U.S., SDF, and ISIS are working in tandem
to stop the advance of Syrian Army supported by Russia.
Laninya , September 30, 2017 at 12:15 am
Hey Dave,
Glad you tweaked to the Danilevskii quote. When I read it, I thought: wow! has time stood
still?
Let me address what you said about power, though. You wrote:
But these people have no power. Just about all the power – finance, media, TV,
entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is
in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.
See, I dont go along with that cop out. The population at large has the power to make or
break any of the entities listed above. If Neocons have power, its because people are buying
what theyre selling. Stephen Cohen and Jack Matlock do not because few want to hear what they
have to say right now.
As I said above, our Western economy was built on privateering. We know what butters our
bread (plunder), yet we also want to present ourselves as being on the side of the angels. So
we give power to the murders and thieves among us and then pretend were not responsible for
what they do. I read that as being the shrewd as a serpent part of what Danilevskii was
talking about.
As for the Saker, I frequent the Vineyard myself.
Thanks for the conversation.
Karl Sanchez , September 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm
Essentially, in other words, the CIAs having another recruiting drive to further undermine
what little remains of honest, deeply investigative journalism within the Outlaw US Empire.
The Big Black Hole gets dug deeper daily. The success of CIA brainwashing can be seen by the
number of people denouncing those Taking a Knee.
MaDarby , September 28, 2017 at 7:56 pm
Clearly propaganda works. People rage against the empire and then swallow whole its fear
mongering and demonizing of Russia ultimately siding with the Empire.
There are so many people journalists and persons loved by the left who have clearly now
sided with the Empire big names who just cave in and say oh just one more election in our
wonderful democracy please its pathetic. There is no such thing as democracy in an
Empire.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 9:14 am
what has been revealed by Republican government officials to be facts, like the intrusion
of voting machines in 21 states
One should be very careful about such facts – much of it has been retracted, and
usually the retraction receives much less attention than the original allegation. As far as
Wisconsin is concerned, the allegations have already been retracted: https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of
Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with
Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection. So, while the attribution of the
source of the probing to the Russian state is speculative, in the case of Wisconsin, the
target was not even the elections commission, but the department of workforce
development.
Of course, not everything has explicitly been retracted, but when we look at this pattern
of allegations about Russia (like that they hacked the electric grid in Vermont) that are
later retracted, that should rather lead people to be skeptical about all these
allegations.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Your very mention of hacked e-mails reveals your extreme bias on the issue. In your view,
it would be impossible to expect one or more individuals with integrity in the IT department
of the DNC being horrified by the revelations and the dealings these revealed about the
pre-selected candidate Clinton. Some people may have been genuinely outraged by the attempt
of the DNC establishment hacks to undermine Sanders in violation of the partys own rules and
proceed to leak this sensitive info to Wikileaks. But for people like you it had to be
Russia.
If anything, the pitiful arguments and non-facts used to promote the fake Russia-gate
scandal further reinforce the certainty that this was concocted to attack Trumps presidency.
And what people like you fail to understand is that had a leftist candidate won the
elections, one who would be sincerely interested to change the course of the US in numerous
aspects of domestic and foreign policy, such an individual would face the same implacable
hostility by the neoliberal establishment.
And it is the servile mentality of a large number of the US/western citizenry – to
which part you obviously belong – that allows the same people who have spewing lies and
fantastic narratives that serve the countrys corporate oligarchy to get away again and again
and proceed to do so in every occasion it is required of them. There are no consequences for
deliberately spreading falsehoods and it always works.
As for the threat of an armageddon, if you honestly believe that penalizing diplomacy with
Russia (a fantastic achievement that was not seen during the Cold War) doesnt carry any
dangers, you have an extremely limited perception of international politics.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Mr. Goldman, your comments on this site are entertaining and obfuscating at once. You say,
as though speaking truth, …it did appear that the hacked e-mails and Trumps closing
arguments in the election, were coordinated. What hacked emails? There were no hacked emails,
though, like you, newspapers repeat that phrase to establish it as a given in peoples minds,
cementing the propaganda at which point it is no longer questioned. Seeit worked with you.
Hacking and leaking are entirely different processes. The emails were LEAKED from the DNC to
Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Period. Provable. Fact. Ground zero is the leaked emailsproving
Hilary wanted to discredit Sanders as an opponent, move forward on war with Iran and Russia
(both would be as illegal as all our other wars in the past 70 years), strengthen her
connections with the banking world, and become president. Since you say you want facts to
prevail, let them.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:15 pm
To say there is no proof of mischief is a conclusion that defies logic and fact. Firstly
we have every right to investigate this issue, and secondly Trump operatives and Russian
behavior created this investigation, not the other way around, and the evidence appears to
be growing.
I think this person is a True Believer in what is the logical extension of the Cheney
Doctrine. <and here I've been saying that the BushBots were all gone!) From the wiki:
If theres a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a
nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. Its not about
our analysis Its about our response.
In other words, the Bushies were going to do what they damned well pleased. Fast Forward
to 2017. From the essay above:
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So,
this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times,
dont you think?
As Mr. Golden says, it defies logic not to treat this as a genuine Threat To American
Democracy. Approximately 1/10,000th of 1% of Twitter accounts are in on this scheme –
Mr. Parry is clearly being a contrary stick-in-the-mud for denying evidence which is
perfectly obvious to the most casual observer.
Seer , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am
Do you type with a straight face? From your previous post: Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation
anon , September 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm
More propaganda from the zionist scammer Golden:
1. The professional investigators did any usable internet tracing in 2016: routers do not
have second thoughts; the investigators made serious and amateurish mistakes and false
statements recently;
2. An abundance of caution was allowed in 2016 and is propaganda now;
3. It is absurd to say that statements of the lack of evidence defy logic and fact and then
be unable to cite a single bit of evidence;
4. More zionist lies pretending that the US Mideast policy is not dictated by Israeli
bribes;
5. More zionist lies that Russia and the US have conflicting, geo-political interests in the
Middle East, that have nothing to do with Israel
6. Spare us the fantasy and stick to the facts or go preach to your zionist paymasters.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm
right track wrong track polling with current sept figures
Right track wrong track polling, links now waiting moderation, show in the 60 percentiles
America on the wrong track in successive years. In pursuing this type of polling I find in
similar sources, consistent over the past year, discontent with the government spending time
on the Russia conspiracy instead of getting after health care and other issues considered
more important. I also find 84% currently support the NFL athletes right to protest, but only
39% think taking a knee is acceptable. Also found a somewhat amusing reference to the
Lingerie Football League, which Id never heard of, females playing football in skimpy
outfits, and this (should I say body) states that the flag is too sacred to be protested.
Well, the Russkies didnt get to these lingerie football players yet, I am relieved to
report.
I found results in duck duck go under right track wrong track polling and do Americans
believe in Russia-gate and do Americans support NFL players protesting.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm
I think 12% of Americans favored the R health care plan. They have spent 9 months on it,
and havent given up. Two years pitching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi as a complete
fabrication, so what is your point again? Further, check your data on the Russian
investigation again. I dont know anyone who doesnt support the investigation and Rachael
Maddow is now #1 on cable news (from 3rd), and thats all she talks about.
D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 8:12 pm
This comment appears to be typical of your thinking, Robert, and Im sorry to say it does
no credit. You have taken what I said and twisted it. According to poll reports I was looking
at earlier, and some of these are now waiting moderation 65% of Americans felt the emphasis
on Russia-gate overdone and want the government to spend time on more important matters, such
as health care, which you dismiss here as outright incorrect. In your previous reply to me
you revealed what your certainty about fact rests on: in your own words that is hunch. Well,
hunch wont do it for the critical thinking youre calling for, Robert, which I respectfully
suggest you do more of. Your cred here is pretty low at the moment. I mean no malice by
saying so.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm
R. Golden, Here are some facts: Healthcare for all citizens in this country would be half
the cost for twice the care. Period. Read T.R. Reids book, investigating other countries with
free health care for all. It is amusing that Fidel Castro once pointed out the Cuban
education and health care systems compared to the US.
All citizens want healthcare for all, except those few who are made wealthy keeping the
status quo (pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, those doctors in the AMA who are paid off
for supporting certain markets in the medical fields and encouraging use of certain drugs,
and paid-off politicians who lobby for these thieves and get funding for their elections).
Why should those handful of money hungry men control our health system? You may be interested
to learn that the people in the medical field who actually care about patients, the vast
majority, want Medicare from birth forward.
Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm
R. Golden, Rachael Maddow has lost her creditability with her rants about Russia and
pro-militarism, neither stance defendable. If shes now ranked 3rd, that is indicative of the
low level of intelligence and critical thinking in the country. After all, Russia/Putin is
innocent until proven otherwise (not by guesses, hunches, innuendos, suggestions, quotes by
unnamed officials, and outright lies). After all, ALL our wars since WWII have been illegal
and against international law, and are engaged with false flags. Should we support soldiers
who are sent into battle to murder innocent civilians in sovereign lands? No. That would be
insanity.
WC , September 28, 2017 at 6:53 pm
Bad enough on my safe space that I have Paul Craig Roberts harping on these same issues,
now Parry joins the fray. I need to be reassured that there is no profit in a nuclear
wasteland and even political sociopaths and the bankers that own them have an instinct for
survival. In the back of my head I keep hearing George C. Scotts character in Strangelove
saying, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes
floyd gardner , September 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm
WaterCloset, a courtesy flush please?
WC , September 29, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Good one. :) But you cant flush the level of BS that has been fed to the public over the
past number of years. Thats why Trump the plumber was elected, to drain the swamp etc.
So now what happens? 20+ trillion in debt with 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, let
alone off-shoring all those jobs is a fairly good indicator the shit is backed up to the
ceiling. If we are to believe Trump actually makes any decisions, what are his choices? QE4?
Austerity to piss people off even more? Or start another war someplace to take peoples minds
off the collapsing economy?
To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Aint Seen Nothing Yet.
Danny Weil , September 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm
America is stumbling into a diystopic future with a clueless public and a corporate
fascist government.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:30 pm
The motivation of the neocon NYT is worth speculating about. Yes, they've been wanting to
smash Muslim nations for israel for ages. What other possible motives might there be?
Why are these billionaires doubling down on Israeli Investments?
What do Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffett all
have in common?
Speculation – it might be as simple as money. Remember, Israel OWNS the US Congress,
and has managed to put the fear of God into every last one of them. This unprecedented
influence could easily be translated into some enormous financial benefits for those Rich
Guys who suck up in the proper and approved manner. It would be as simple as slipping in some
innocent-looking phrases into some of the boring legislation hardly anybody reads. You can
bet that it would pass, and you can also bet that the Corporate Media will keep their yaps
shut about it.
So thats another theory – plain and simple corruption midwifed by the thieving and
murdering little shithole of an apartheid nation.
I seem to have forgotten to mention that Carlos Slim is supposed to be a major stockholder
of the neocon NYT.
Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Please do some reading. Your first stop should be the Koch Bros who own the largest track
of Canadian Tar Sands, and are potentially going to be twice as rich, after Trump approved
the Keystone Pipeline, from Canada through the middle of America all the way to the flooded
and toxic plains, to Houston (final destination Asia). Youll find they already own most of
the global warming denying Congress (not Israel), and their next extraction site will
probably be the Grand Canyon. After you have read up on the Kochs, check out the Mercers.
Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm
koch Bros
Canadian Tar Sands
Keystone Pipeline
Mercers
The connection of these places and people to the BS peddling by the NYT isnt entirely
clear to me.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:21 am
The connection is that this modern Roman Empire is very big: the inheritors of the Roman
Empire (France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and so on) have been wanting to smash Muslim
Empires for 1500 years, having lost their M.E. and N. African Provinces to them. Since the
Zion project was hatched by Cecil Rhodes RoundTable Group in the19th century, the Israel
Project is a project of the British Province of the modern Roman Empire, which ALSO commands
considerable influence in its Western Provinces Canada and USA, hence: Koch Bros.,Canadian
Tar Sands, Keystone Pipeline, Mercers. Of course Im talking about the integrated community of
1%er Oligarchs, NOT The People of these Provinces. Corbyn and Sanders (and whoever the
Canadian and Israeli equivalents would be) can throw a gigantic Monkey Wrench into these
imperial shenanigans
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:26 am
Israel is a way of continuing the smashing process of Muslim Empires by the modern Roman
Empire, and I forgot to say that Germany is also a very big part of the modern Roman Empire,
which carried the name Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleonic times (which, BTW, ole Nappie
himself became their model for a modern Fascist Roman Emperor, as his Generals and extremely
regressive factions within the Catholic Church hatched the Synarchy Internationale Project
mid-19th century).
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:59 am
ok, you brought it up, so i will run with it..
bringing it around full circle.
modern roman empire. yes. agreement . but
only british monarchy. with allies, not partners. why is this important? if one looks at
the history of the royal institute for international affairs, one can see that the crown had
to figure out how to maintain control of their assets. fast forward to the american branch.
its called the council on foreign relations. the number of members in our government over
years and years is staggering. just keep that in mind.
there is ample evidence of british involvement in the us war of northern aggression. and
not just because they traded with the south. did you know that the monarchys cousins, the
russian crown, sent warships to california in defense of the union?
its my opinion that this act is what sealed the fate of the romanovs in 1917. payback. for
whatever reason the british crown holds grudges. im irish. not sure what my ancestors did to
piss them off but they havent let off on our people in a thousand years…
this anti russia thing started before obama although it was not as overt.
the orange color revolution happened in (wait for it….) ukraine under bush. and
while not reported as a cia supported venture, i think we know what happened.
does anyone remember 8/8/08? opening day of the olympics in china. but a mini war was
started in south ossetia. american media initially reported that russians had attacked un
soldiers there.
the present anti russian hysteria started when putin checkmated the neo libs/neo cons when
their attempt to destabilize syria failed. thats when i observed the overt media attacks
begin.
funny thing. i have actually been to russia and ukraine. in 1979. it was the first time in
my life that i had been outside of the usa. the government propaganda of the previous 60
years had made me think of all russians as evil bond villians. it was eye opening to finally
meet real russians. understand they were just people like me. i was 16 and it was the first
time i had the blinders lifted. a real learning moment.
so, i guess that makes me guilty of collusion. sorry to you hillary supporters.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Yes, hated, I agree with you on all points. Czar Alexander II was killed (he was Lincolns
Ally against British and French plans to join battle with Davis against Lincoln. Lincoln was
killed for the Greenback maneuver around British monetary control (a Venetian style of Empire
via monetary control & manipulation). Lincolns war of agression was a war against the
superpower British Empire and its puppet the Confederacy (Planter Oligarchs), Wall Street
assets (J.P. Morgan & Co., money handlers for the Planters), and the Essex Country Junto
(New England Blue Bloods in shipping for the Empires slave and Opium trade). The Planter
oligarchy was crushed. The Wall Streeters lived on (Essex County Junto bluebloods tooour Axis
of Evil against the Republic, and Independence from Empire). Lincolns GreenBacks was a
typical example of the American Credit System of Political Economy (control of economy by a
Sovereign Nation-States Government in the hands of We The People via House of
Representatives, a deadly threat to the British-Style of Empire via a Venetian Monetary
System manipulated & controlled by oligarchs. Russia always supported USA Revolution as a
counter-balance to British Empire designs on Russia (enemy of my enemy is my friend),(and
French Empire and Ottoman Empire too, as evidenced by Crimean War 1856).
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm
British Crown is Princeps? (First among Equals)
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 4:15 pm
Im of Welsh-Irish ancestry (Irish on my mothers side). Her grand father came over as a
stow-a-way to flee the potato famine (neo liberal economics at its purestancestor of TINA
Thatcherism and austerities, deficits, balanced budgets and suchlike wicked gaming with
peoples lives (but Banks and MIIC are too big to fail of course). Lincoln would have just
GreenBacked his way out of Depression and imminent economic collapse (a Credit System
recognizing it is LABOR upon raw materials that is the SOURCE of ALL wealth, NOT Venetian
Fondi in an oligarchs off-shore piggy bank). The grudge against the Celtic Fringe (Welsh and
Scotts too) comes from the fact that we were on the the Islands first, by many Centuries
before the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians showed up. This is just flawed human nature in
action. I suppose the Picts can claim the same grievance against us Celts; American Indians
too. The enemy is Oligarchy. It s class warfare, not Tribal warfare, and THEY are masters at
divide-to-conquer, seeking out all useful flaws and weaknesses.
As the rest of the world also sees the US fabrications, American may one day find itself
under fire from many directions. No one likes a dirty player.
Louise , September 28, 2017 at 7:47 pm
While it may appear to become a nuisance after more than a year, it may
also become very dangerous. It could be a serious effort to get the
populace to condone an illegal war in Syria involving Russia. People
dont pay much attention to Assad and the Syrians, but the Russians
are already complaining about US forces working with ISIS. If those
reports are true the plausible deniability will work if the people are
preconditioned to disbelieve whatever comes from the Kremlin.
Washington accuses others of nefarious tactics it employs itself. Now Washington accuses
the Syrian Arab Army of colluding with the wahabist militants bent on genocide in Syria. This
accusation alone informs the audience that Washington is in collusion with the wahabist
militant gangs operating across the globe.
In the link you will see how the SDF seems to cut through wahabist gang territory like a hot
knife through butter. Easily securing the region north of Deir es-Zor, and are currently
cutting west across the desert as fast as those ubiquitous toyota trucks can carry them
without showing any evidence of fighting, according to Russian surveillance.
Russia is all about protecting its buffer zone & rightly so. The West plays the Great
Game while an unwitting public buys the rationale for standing up to Russia, China, Iran etc.
Why wouldnt the Russians use the Trump admin to shore up its borders to protect them from
NATO expansion? Trump is surely engaged in laundering the Russian oligarchs money. How else
could it be after the US did everyting it could to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union
& let it be taken over by industries privatized by Yeltzin as a schill for America. As
Putin has pointed out, the collapse of the SU was the worst thing that happened in the 20th
cent.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 10:17 am
As far as I know, Putin did not say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst
thing that happened (to Russia?) in the 20th century. That would hardly be plausible –
even if the 90es were very bad for Russia, the Holocaust and Nazi Germanys attack on the
Soviet Union with about 20 million Soviet victims was almost certainly worse. Also the crimes
of Stalinism are certainly on a larger scale than the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What Putin said was: Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet
Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became
a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside
Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.
a major geopolitical disaster of the century does not necessaily mean the greatest
geopolitical disaster of the century
As with some other statements (for example the canard that Putin allegedly praised Trump
as a genius in December 2015), the basis of the claim is a translation problem. This question
is discussed here:
https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10457/what-is-the-basis-for-putin-describing-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-as-the/10549
Putin used a superlative form krupneyshaya. The meaning of this form is similar to the
Italian grandissima and means very big. But it does not necessarily mean the biggest,
although it could in some contexts.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm
i like your comment. well researched.
Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The crimes of Stalin did not leave the country – USSR or Russia – a moribund
state. The population was increasing in the end of the 30s and the country was an
industrialized power that could not be easily threatened by other forces, short of being hit
by the most powerful army in the world (which is what happened). Russia by the late 90s was a
post-apocalyptic gangland with a fast decreasing population and a swiftly unraveling state
and society. That was a product of the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing neoliberal shock
treatment.
Since the countrys descent into the abyss was stopped by Putin & Co, it goes without
saying that this was the cause of the recent outburst of Putinophobia.
Lois Gagnon , September 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm
It all reeks of desperation on the part of the Empires power trippers. They know in the
back of their minds that their criminal racket is faltering. Russiagate is the duct tape
holding the house of cards together. At least until they can finish looting every last drop
of profit from as many colonies (including this one) as they can.
Sorry to say, the same phenomenon has been at work in climate science for quite some
time.
Apparently its all about providing fodder for propaganda outlets and requiring conformity
on the part of the white collar set.
Whether or not its convincing to the masses is not an issue.
Russiagate will be easier to fudge over the long term, and short of an upset in the power
structure may prevail for some decades until revision finally takes place.
Hide Behind , September 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm
The original inveztigation was begun by a man since fired, N. Y. STAtes attorney General,
and it had to do nothing at all about election interference by Russia proper,:It was about
Trumps illegally laundering Russian Oligarchs stolen funds from Russia.
Trail led to and thru AGI bank of Germany and off shore banking in Bahamas. Same facilitys
Clinton Foundation uses.
This got into a cluster fu.. when Feds and Congress intervened. As the Investigation also
uncovered many a counts to politicly connected elected and appointed officials who like as
Russia showed Mc Cains letters Doing for contributions from high ranking Russians during his
run for Prez.
Same formula as used clear back to Arizona 5s embezzlement of Fed HUD and FHA funds and
original Clintons when in Arkansas of same embezzlement that got sidetracked into a Lie about
a BJ in white house by girl.
Smoke and mirrors have hid many many a prominent and financial miscreants deeds in US.
Yet the brain washed still a t as if they live in a
Democracy, And like Little Ikemens salute the flag and let children never learn difference of
indoctrinated Nationalism from Ideals of
patriotism.
Dumb As Rocks Spout, Support The Troop, But Not The War, As the volunteer troop slaughter
hundreds of thousands and displace millions.
into eternal poverty by just following orders.
Go watch your military recruitment indoctrination and show your loyalty to permanent warfare
as millions of Americans suffer from your as S ki
Hide Behind , September 29, 2017 at 1:47 am
I would like to recommend George Orwells collection of essays, All art is propaganda, it
is not so much of a heavy read as it is time consuming as so many essays when finished invade
ones mind that one pauses to assimilate and judge the content fully before beginning
next.
As for slime:
It is said that government began in Mespotamia and it was quite a model for each following
social order; That is until the Greeks invented politics and since them chaos reigns.
Politics defy treason and logic as well as natural physical laws.
For unlike in natures scheme of things pond slime sinks to the bottom. Whereas in politics
the slime raises to the top.
Not of Orwell s caliber of writing, just my own observation of USA politi Al system.
Realist , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 am
This Spanish Inquisition being run by the Congress is getting to the point of absurdity.
They ought to be prosecuted for trying to deliberately deceive the public, and simply for
insulting the intelligence of everyone on the planet earth.
RT reports the following, they are usually spot on accurate with their reporting since
Washington is always trying to debunk them:
Earlier this month, Facebook said that it had identified up to $150,000 in advertising,
purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, that was connected to roughly 470 inauthentic
accounts and pages that were likely operated out of Russia, Chief Security Officer Alex
Stamos wrote. Stamos admitted that the vast majority of ads run by these accounts had nothing
to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.
Google said it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting
advertising to manipulate the election. Were always monitoring for abuse or violations of our
policies and weve seen no evidence this type of ad campaign was run on our platforms, Google
said last week, according to Reuters.
During the 2016 election, Twitter said they deleted thousands of tweets and accounts that
attempted to suppress or otherwise interfere with the exercise of voting rights, including
the right to have a vote counted, by circulating intentionally misleading information. This
included tweets that told users they could cast their ballots by text or tweet, which is not
true. Twitter also said that they shared the content of deleted tweets with investigators on
Thursday. The company however noted that they did not find any of those accounts had obvious
Russian origin. All these things were presented before Congress on Thursday.
So, Facebook, Google and Twitter all provide scant evidence, if any, that Russia or
Russians directed any disinformation at the American voter to try to sabotage our democracy.
If anything of the sort got through, it was certainly like a single tear drop in the deluge
of mud-slinging that the American candidates and their two parties constantly cast at one
another. Any sane person would realise nothing consequential was or really could be attempted
against that torrent of genuine American-made bullcrap, so there was zero motive to do so,
and we know that Putin is no fool to waste his time or resources. Yet, Adam Schiff presents
his hideous visage, peanut brain and deceptive words on American network television yesterday
and claims that its certain fact that the Russian government sabotaged our election by
purchasing ads on Facebook and tweeting mean things about Hillary Clinton on Twitter. For
good measure, he says Russia is also guilty of stirring up the whole Black lives matter
campaign and the bruhaha about taking a knee during the national anthem played at sporting
events. They wouldnt try making this stuff up even in Alices Wonderland. It would fail to get
a laugh in the Onion, even on April 1st. These people are a national embarrassment for being
so blatantly and shamelessly dishonest. These are the same knuckleheads who thought Baghdad
Bob was the propaganda parody to end them all, and theyve gone him one better far better.
I eagerly hope to see examples of the handful of ads and tweets that the conspiracy freaks
in the Congress have made the centerpiece of their case against Russia. But if they are
nothing more than blurbs advertising their media productions (like watch Larry King, Ed
Schultz or Tom Hartmann), I doubt we will ever will. Or, maybe they said something extremely
provocative like watch RT and evaluate the facts for yourself. Wow, that would be tantamount
to an act of war (in the minds of neocons), but still not enough to warrant a viewing by the
American public which still might harbor some sane individuals.
Trust me – as an Amerikanska in Russia – I think some Russians are hating me
when they hear me speak some English while from the other side –America – I no
longer get e-mails from -- Anyone. I understand where the Russians are coming from because I
see the demonization of their country coming from the Americans and their axis, but to see
the Americans get sooo programmed in propaganda that they cant even listen to someone theyve
known for decades -- is pretty disgusting , especially when some of them are/ used to be
– rather intelligent. Spacibo Mr. Parry and commenters.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 6:51 am
Why Americans ever put any stock in the self-serving propaganda put out by the wealthy
owners of the major media is a mystery, until you consider all the false ideas about America
that have already been shoveled into their heads by their long public education brainwashing
and numbing experience. The basic idea promoted by our culture is just shut up and accept
whatever garbage you are told, and you will get along fine (conform). Start asking a lot of
challenging questions, and you are in for a lot of trouble. I know this from personal
experience, I was always in a lot of trouble with the self-satisfied authorities in my life,
including my parents and teachers. I am forever grateful that I stubbornly persisted in
questioning authority, in spite of all the difficulties it has caused me.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 7:03 am
The football players who are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, are
experiencing the fury of those who clutch their societal group-think like a precious security
blanket. Our public opinion manipulator in chief D. Trump is making it clear why it was said
that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Score one propaganda ploy for the scoundrel
in chief.
Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:59 am
Yes all this nonsense while at the same time, once again I might add, the 1st Amendment
takes a backseat to Private Ownership.now stand up damn it.
Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 10:19 am
Yes, the groupthink of mass media is accepted by most for personal security.
Mass media tell them the oligarchy line as what other people think so they dare not
disagree.
Mass media say that all are unethical so why pay a price to be good citizens.
But it is very significant that the football players refused to display nationalism.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm
It is also significant in signaling automatic (pavlovian) behavior, no questions asked,
and right in line with my country right or wrong and blind obedience, attitudes historically
is associated with autocracy and repression. I have yet to see any commentary on what the
flag means, or possible contexts of meaning, including that it stands for the current
governing system, as well as for historical considerations. Sorry to harp on this, but the
scantily dressed females of the Lingerie Football League in stating the flag is too sacred
evidently found no inconsistency in their salutes with serious faces while scantily clad.
This seems to me akin to going to church in a bikini and somehow contradictory to sacred. But
sacred in itself hearkens back to the 1690s and the Salem witch trials before separation of
church and state became understood as more rational. Any kind of worship can be taken too far
into mindlessness, which is contradictory to the ideals this country was founded on in terms
of equality and the first amendment. Beware of the scoundrels indeed.
I have always wondered why you seldom get reflections of the illness in American society,
after reading articles like this. Trump is mad, Hillary is evil, the MS media is corrupt and
dishonest. But its American culture that is responsible for thisthese arent accidents or
untypical. Self-honesty is the least common of all American characteristics. Hunting for
excuses and boogeymen, one of the most common.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:25 am
The tacit belief in our exceptionalism makes us immune to self-criticism. Another name for
American Hubris. Our belief that we are Gods chosen ones explains in part our strange
affinity with Israel.
Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am
The American Culture was concocted with Malice Afore Thought by the Congress of Cultural
Freedom (CCF) starting in the Post-War years: from EIR search box; Congress of cultural
freedom; making the world safe for fascism, also from search box; Synarchy against
America.
Clif , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
NPR is complicit, giving Mark Jacobson of Georgetown a platform on Sept. 28 All Things
Considered to pontificate about how Americans are falling prey to Russian disinformation.
This entire sequence has drained me of any faith in American Intelligence operations, and
MSM.
napier , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan,
or *conspiratorial political news and information*.
I face-palmed when I read this. The lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers
is truly amazing.
Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am
Often with such propagandistic allegations – be it WMD in Iraq or Russian meddling
-, there are problems that go beyond the lack of evidence. People without access to secret
information could not know, of course, whether these was a good basis for the allegations
about WMD. Certainly, people should have demanded that some of the evidence is made public,
but even if someone accepts that some things must remain secret, it simply did not make sense
to use the presentation of Colin Powell before the UN as a basis for starting a war. It could
have been a basis for intensifying the inspections – and at that time, after some
pressure, the Iraqi government allowed inspections everywhere -, but it certainly was no
basis for stopping the inspections and starting a war of aggression.
Similarly, it is clear that those who put forward allegations about Russian meddling (some
are regularly retracted, some arent and their status remain unclear) have the burden of
proof. But the problem is not just that evidence is lacking, but many of these allegations
are not very plausible and make little sense.
The first problem is that many statements in US media presuppose a worldview of
international politics as a kind of zero sum game and dont even ask the question whether such
a worldview is appropriate and whether it is common in Russia. It is just assumed that Russia
and the United States are enemies and that anything that is bad for the United States is good
for Russia and anything that is bad for Russia is good for the United States. Of course,
there are areas in international politics where the United States have conflicting positions,
but such a worldview based on a zero-sum game is far from obvious. What exactly should be the
advantage for Russia when internal divisions in the United States are increased? Is it
plausible that the United States is more likely to take the Russian perspective more
seriously or be ready for compromises if it has more severe internal divisions? Not
necessarily, I would even think that the opposite is more likely. Probably, the proponents of
this theory could come up with a story why in that case it would make sense for Russia to
increase internal divisions in the United States, but mostly, this question is not even
asked, and these stories look more like an ad-hoc justification for a preconceived story.
Then, ignoring the doubts whether it would really make sense from a strategic point of
view for Russia to exacerbate internal divisions in the United States for a moment, what
would someone who, indeed, has the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States
do? At first sight, it might seem that supporting both sides in existing conflicts (e.g. for
and against BLM, for and against gun rights, for and against NFL players kneeling down etc.)
may make sense. But the problem is that such a line of reasoning ignores the question of
effectiveness. As far as these matters are concerned, there are already many US citizens who
passionately support one of the two sides, and there are US donors who are ready to support
one of these sides. If, in addition to those passionate supporters of one side, someone who
is interested in increasing the divisions also supports both sides, the effect relative to
the resources that are needed is relatively small. This may not be a strong counter-argument
if we were talking about a large rich country attempting to meddle in a small poor one, but
that is hardly an adequate description of the relationship of Russia to the United States.
Certainly, on the whole, the Russian state still has quite a lot of resources, but if it had
the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States, adding a bit more to both sides
of existing conflicts about which many Americans are so passionate that they are ready to use
time and in some cases money to support one of the two sides would probably so ineffective
that it would hardly make sense. Attempting to create new conflicts could theoretically make
sense – then, we should see ads and social media campaigns about conflicts that are not
very prominent in public discourse (I dont know about any evidence or even indications that
this is actually done) -, but when there are just ads and social media messages from fake
accounts for both sides of common existing conflicts, other explanations are more plausible.
For instance, it can be that it only seems that they come from a common source because of
some superficial features, but are in fact from opposing sides (i.e. people who want to
support one of the sides in the conflict, not to increase the conflict by supporting both
sides), or it could be that there is a common source, but that the common source is a
commercial entity that conducts campaigns for both sides for money (and maybe there are some
people who use Russian language settings or some parts of that business are in Russia).
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:29 am
To expect most American citizens to think rationally is to expect the impossible. Not only
were they not taught to think critically; they were taught not to do that.
mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:35 am
And because of that deficiency in the public, if we wish to effect some change in their
thinking, we are reduced to employing the same emotion based methods that have proven so
successful for the establishment and its propagandists. The simple truth has zero effect on
the typical American Zombie – he is too dead sure that his conditioning trumps
reality.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 11:37 am
It is almost amusing, as with this mainstream analysis from CNN (Sept 26), that states the
FB ads were meant to sew divisions and chaos in the electorate, with many of the messages at
cross-purposes.
The apparent goal of the ads, the sources who spoke with CNN said, was to amplify
political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos around the 2016 presidential
campaign, not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.
This assessment is spoken with great seriousness and a recommendation that these ads be
made accessible to the public. This MSM report also assumes that the Russia-bought accounts
stem from official Russia or the Kremlin, with no further discussion. A CNN poll claims 54%
of Americans believe Russia interfered via these FB ads. Further breakdown in that polling
indicates the lions share comes from whites who believe this.
But as you point out, Adrian, the body politic is (and was during the election period)
already riven and in a state of incivility (another claim of the purpose of these FB ads) as
we could see by reviewing behaviors in the election itself, to include Trumps statements at
his rallies and Hillary Clintons actions in consort with a corrupted DNC. Common sense would
indicate these widely exposed rogue behaviors at the time would out-do a mere 100,000 spent
on FB, as has already been pointed out, so the CNN report is in danger of desperate
exaggeration.
As far back as 2014 surveys of that time indicates the American publics trust in MSM had
plummeted to something like 40%, and although I cannot find current figures on this (in 2016
RT found that only 6% of Americans trust MSM, but thats RT) but especially given the fiasco
of the 2016 election, plausibly, that sense of trust is not increasing much. So that, given
the already fractious and uncivil state of the country in many respects what were seeing is a
continuation of desperate efforts to use the Russia did it meme for various political and
opportunistic purposes. Further, MSM besides in the employ of special interests, has a
naturally in-built bias toward presentation of dramatic, simplistic viewpoints that incite
emotionalism and nationalism.
As I noted yesterday, the NFL controversy currently includes, with a straight face,
scantily dressed female football players of the Lingerie Football League claiming that the
flag is too sacred to be protested as they stand there with their booties exposed in the wind
clutching their chests with straight faces. This sort of high drama is surely could for MSM
audiences and ratings.
As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again,
the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care
scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising
inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.
Methinks the MSM furor now turning to FB in its puny weight to be taken seriously is
getting more and more desperate–and ridiculous.
Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm
D5-5 –
Your comments: As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters
there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an
outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police
management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering
politics has become.
You have summed up the state in which an average person lives here now.
hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm
ok, i have to say it.
everybody is stupid. all over the world. and yet.everybody is a genius. even though i
partake in this complaining about how
stupid people are sometimes. its really not true. people are smart. just easily led.
i find that americans are just used to being propagandized. its a habit. that only some of
us are starting to come out of. if the workings of propaganda and advertising were taught in
school, at a young age, the world would be a better place. i think most of the commenters
here at consortium news have probably made that jump from believing the media blindly. but we
are still a minority. and to be honest, some views i see repeated here still seem to reflect
this instinctive belief in doctrines put forth in the media. remember that its only been
about 8 generations of people since we threw off the monarchy here. talk about
indoctrination…thats really not a long time. the history of kings/queens as rulers
takes up a much larger part of the history of human existence. one could even say its in our
genes..epi-genetics…
modern propaganda is only 100 years old or so.
so a modern antidote should be thought of.
well hopefully figure it out.
D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm
Dave, Im privileged in being able to spend so much time here in this forum and do some
thinking. But out on the street I find a different situation than what were discussing here
so often with (including myself) the tendency to talk of the American sheeple and stupidity
and such. I find people in supermarket parking lots in a state of despair, asking me for a
quarter, their misery plain on their faces. Im told 45 million Americans are on the verge of
poverty and in poverty. Where I go, too, I find my community members trying to be civil, most
of them, and theres not a whole lot of political talk at the cashier stands in the grocery
stores. I despair that this beautiful country, which still has a great deal going for it, is
knuckled under to the worst political system Ive seen in my lifetime going back decades. I do
not understand that an opposition party could become so inept and corrupted into
incompetence, and the ruling party in a state of incoherence and stupidity. And yet I can
give all this sort of thing time and thinking, but how many can? I love this country and the
people, and am very saddened at the travesty, and where we now stand in world opinion.
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
Blame it on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an aggressor
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, Blame it on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They Blame it on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They Blame it on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that their democracy is lost in transmission
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They Blame it on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of an act of war
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
Blame it on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, Blame it on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Having just watched the episode of Oliver Stones excellent Untold History of the United
States which deals with the earliest historical political period which I can remember from
first hand experience, I found the revisiting of Ronald Reagan bald-faced lies delivered with
absolute seeming sincerity to be truly frightening. He was either a truly underestimated
first-rate actor, a complete psychopath, or he really was just a carefully picked figurehead.
Perhaps it really was as intimated in the episode that it was more a Bush II/Cheney sort of
thing, the first two options sort of meld into each other if the lies he repeated were done
so knowingly and he just didnt seem to have the intellectual capacity for much of anything
arduous like being an actual Machiavellian.
The most important thing about this was just how easy it was, at the time, to just take
the edifice of lies at face value. I was in my teens at the time, but I did consider myself
to be of a rather independent mindset and much of what was bandied by these Republican Party
Reptiles (not a funny proposition at all really in the end despite ORourkess seductiveness)
rang false. That did not stop them from acquiring the patina of Truth, albeit ever so
superficial, due to the hypnotic authoritative method of their delivery. Im glad I properly
discovered the work of Robert Parry even if it is belatedly, due to my own Sleep of Reason
because of this saturation of falsehoods despite his tireless work along with other
similar-minded people. I can sense some frustration here in his phrasing with the seeming
lack of difference this tireless work seems to be making to the general perception but I am
grateful for his lucidity, which contributes to mine. How long will such lucidity be allowed
to be disseminated, one can only wonder.
"... And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings. ..."
"... And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are. ..."
"... So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM. ..."
"... The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America. ..."
"... The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people. ..."
As the U.S. government doles out tens of millions of dollars to 'combat Russian propaganda',
one result is a slew of new 'studies' by 'scholars' and 'researchers' auditioning for the loot
...
The Field of Dreams slogan for Americas NGOs should be: If you pay for it, we will come.
And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if
they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how
sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.
And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The
New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying
attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are.
So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports
and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the
MSM.
Yet, there's even an implicit confession about how pathetic some of this scholarship is in
the hazy phrasing that gets applied to the findings, although the weasel words will slip past
most unsuspecting Americans and will be dropped for more definitive language when the narrative
is summarized in the next days newspaper or in a cable-news crawl.
For example, a Times front-page
story on Thursday reported that a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia
seized on both sides of the [NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem] issue with
hashtags, such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee.
The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian
government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S.,
quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against
America.
However, before we empty the nuclear silos and exterminate life on the planet, we might take
a second to look at the Times phrasing a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to
Russia.
The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an
unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and
that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a
country of 144 million people.
Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon
Its like the old game of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yes, perhaps we are all
linked to Kevin Bacon somehow but that doesnt prove that we know Kevin Bacon or are part of a
Kevin Bacon network that is executing a grand conspiracy to sow discontent by taking opposite
sides of issues and then tweeting.
Yet that is the underlying absurdity of the Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott
Shane. Still, as silly as the article may be that doesn't mean its not dangerous. The Times
high-profile treatment of these gauzy allegations represents a grave danger to the world by
fueling a growing hysteria inside the United States about being at war with nuclear-armed
Russia. At some point, someone might begin to take this alarmist rhetoric seriously.
Yes, I understand that lots of people hate President Trump and see Russia-gate as the golden
ticket to his impeachment. But that doesnt justify making serious allegations with next to no
proof, especially when the outcome could be thermonuclear war.
However, with all those millions of dollars sloshing around the NGO world and Western
academia – all looking for some study to fund that makes Russia look bad – you are
sure to get plenty of takers. And, we should now expect that new findings like these will fill
in for the so-far evidence-free suspicions about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the
presidency from Hillary Clinton.
If you read more deeply into the Times story, you get a taste of where Russia-gate is headed
next and a clue as to who is behind it:
Since last month, researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan
initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, have been
publicly tracking 600 Twitter accounts -- human users and suspected bots alike -- they have
linked to Russian influence operations. Those were the accounts pushing the opposing messages
on the N.F.L. and the national anthem.
Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent had a primary
theme of anti-Americanism, the researchers found. About 15 percent were critical of Hillary
Clinton, falsely accusing her of funding left-wing antifa -- short for anti-fascist --
protesters, tying her to the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and discussing
her daughter Chelseas use of Twitter. Eleven percent focused on wiretapping in the federal
investigation into Paul Manafort, President Trumps former campaign chairman, with most of them
treated the news as a vindication for President Trumps earlier wiretapping claims.
The
Neocons, Again!
So, lets stop and unpack this Times reporting.
First, this Alliance for Securing Democracy is not some neutral truth-seeking organization
but a neoconservative-dominated outfit that includes on its advisory board such neocon
luminaries as Mike Chertoff, Bill Kristol and former Freedom House president David Kramer along
with other anti-Russia hardliners such as former deputy CIA director Michael Morell and former
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.
Neoconservative pundit William Kristol. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)
How many of these guys, do you think, were assuring us that Iraq was hiding WMDs back in
2003?
This group clearly has an ax to grind, a record of deception, and plenty of patrons in the
Military-Industrial Complex who stand to make billions of dollars from the New Cold War.
The neocons also have been targeting Russia
for regime change for years because they see Russian President Vladimir Putin as the chief
obstacle to their goal of helping Israel achieve its desire for regime change in Syria and a
chance to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Russia-gate has served the neocons well as a very convenient way
to pull Democrats, liberals and even progressives into the neocon agenda because Russia-gate is
sold as a powerful weapon for the anti-Trump Resistance.
The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this
alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you
think?
And, theres the definitional problem of what constitutes anti-Americanism in a news article.
And what does it mean to be linked to Russian influence operations? Does that include Americans
who may not march in lockstep to the one-sided State Department narratives on the crises in
Ukraine and Syria? Any deviation from Official Washingtons groupthink makes you a Moscow
stooge.
And, is it a crime to be critical of Hillary Clinton or to note that the U.S. mainstream
media was dismissive of Trumps claims about being wiretapped only for us to find out later that
the FBI apparently was wiretapping his campaign manager?
However, such questions arent going to be asked amid what has become a massive Russia-gate
groupthink, dominating not just Official Washington, but across much of Americas political
landscape and throughout the European Union.
Why the Bias?
Beyond the obvious political motivations for this bias, we also have had the introduction of
vast sums of money pouring in from the U.S. government, NATO and European institutions to
support the
business of combatting Russian propaganda.
President Obama in the Oval Office.
For example, last December, President Obama signed into law a $160 million funding mechanism
entitled the Combating Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. But that amounts to only a
drop in the bucket considering already existing Western propaganda projects targeting
Russia.
So, a scramble is on to develop seemingly academic models to prove what Western authorities
want proven: that Russia is at fault for pretty much every bad thing that happens in the world,
particularly the alienation of many working-class people from the Washington-Brussels
elites.
The truth cannot be that establishment policies have led to massive income inequality and
left the working class struggling to survive and thus are to blame for ugly political
manifestations – from Trump to Brexit to the surprising support for Germanys far-right
AfD party. No, it must be Russia! Russia! Russia! And theres a lot of money on the bed to prove
that point.
Theres also the fact that the major Western news media is deeply invested in bashing Russia
as well as in the related contempt for Trump and his followers. Those twin prejudices have
annihilated all professional standards that would normally be applied to news judgments
regarding these flawed studies.
On Thursday, The Washington Post ran its own banner-headlined
story drawn from the same loose accusations made by that neocon-led Alliance for Securing
Democracy, but instead the Post sourced the claims to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma. The
headline read: Russian trolls are stoking NFL controversy, senator says.
The evidence cited by Lankfords office was one Twitter account calling itself Boston Antifa
that gives its geolocation as Vladivostok, Russia, the Post reported.
By Thursday, Twitter had suspended the Boston Antifa account, so I couldnt send it a
question, but earlier this month, Dan Glaun, a reporter for Masslive.com, reported
that the people behind Boston Antifa were a pair of anti-leftist pranksters from Oregon who
started Boston Antifa as a parody of actual anti-fascist groups.
In an email to me on Thursday, Glaun cited an interview that
the Boston Antifa pranksters had done with right-wing radio talk show host Gavin McInnes last
April.
And, by the way, there are apps that let
you manipulate your geolocation data on Twitter. Or, you can choose to believe that the
highly professional Russian intelligence agencies didnt notice that they were telegraphing
their location as Vladivostok.
Mindless Russia Bashing
Another example of this mindless Russia bashing appeared just below the Posts story on
Lankfords remarks. The Post
sidebar cited a study from researchers at Oxford Universitys Project on Computational
Propaganda asserting that junk news on Twitter flowed more heavily in a dozen [U.S.]
battleground states than in the nation overall in the days immediately before and after the
2016 presidential election, suggesting that a coordinated effort targeted the most pivotal
voters. Cue the spooky Boris and Natasha music!
Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.
Of course, any Americans living in battleground states could tell you that they are
inundated with all kinds of election-related junk, including negative TV advertising, nasty
radio messages, alarmist emails and annoying robo-calls at dinner time. Thats why theyre called
battleground states, Sherlock.
But whats particularly offensive about this study is that it implies that the powers-that-be
must do more to eliminate what these experts deem propaganda and junk news. If you read deeper
into the story, you discover that the researchers applied a very subjective definition of what
constitutes junk news, i.e., information that the researchers dont like even if it is truthful
and newsworthy.
The Post article by Craig Timberg, who
apparently is using Russia-gate to work himself off the business pages and onto the
national staff, states that The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically
extreme, hyperpartisan, or conspiratorial political news and information.
The researchers also categorized reports from Russia and ones from WikiLeaks – which
published embarrassing posts about Democrat Hillary Clinton based on a hack of her campaign
chairmans emails – as polarizing political content for the purpose of the analysis.
So, this study lumped together junk news with accurate and newsworthy information, i.e.,
WikiLeaks disclosure of genuine emails that contained such valid news as the contents of
Clintons speeches to Wall Street banks (which she was trying to hide from voters) as well as
evidence of the unethical tactics used by the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Sen.
Bernie Sanderss campaign.
Also dumped into the researchers bin of vile disinformation were reports from Russia, as if
everything that comes out of Russia is, ipso facto, junk news.
And, what, pray tell, is conspiratorial political news? I would argue that the past year of
evidence-lite allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. election accompanied by
unsupported suspicions about collusion with the Trump campaign would constitute conspiratorial
political news. Indeed, I would say that this Oxford research constitutes conspiratorial
political news and that Timbergs article qualifies as junk news.
Predictable Outcome
Given the built-in ideological bias of this research, it probably wont surprise you that the
reports author, Philip N. Howard, concludes that junk news originates from three main sources
that the Oxford group has been tracking: Russian operatives, Trump supporters and activists
part of the alt-right, according to the Post.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
I suppose that since part of the methodology was to define reports from Russia as junk news,
the appearance of Russian operatives shouldnt be much of a surprise, but the whole process
reeks of political bias.
Further skewing the results, the report separated out information from professional news
organizations [and] political parties from some junk news source, according to the Post. In
other words, the researchers believe that professional news organizations are inherently
reliable and that outside-the-mainstream news is junk – despite the MSMs long record of
getting major stories wrong.
The real junk is this sort of academic or NGO research that starts with a conclusion and
packs a study in such a way as to guarantee the preordained conclusion. Or as the old saying
goes, garbage in, garbage out.
Yet, its also clear that if you generate research that feeds the hungry beast of
Russia-gate, you will find eager patrons doling out dollars and a very receptive audience in
the mainstream media.
In a place like Washington, there are scores if not hundreds of reports generated every day
and only a tiny fraction get the attention of the Times, Post, CNN, etc., let alone result in
published articles. But studies that reinforce todays anti-Russia narrative are sure
winners.
So, if youre setting up a new NGO or youre an obscure academic angling for a lucrative
government grant as well as some flattering coverage in the MSM, the smart play is to join the
new gold rush in decrying Russian propaganda.
1) This is the rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a
critical mass of places of influence and control.
2) Pay attention to and denounce your more local/regional media -- they are in Control
mode, operating in stealth mode, enabling the narrative, in self-preservation.
3) The People are failing. There's no way to recover from that.
They are like termites, they just never go away, but why worry, none of them will ever
be held accountable-meanwhile, they are in the game, making tons. what is not to
like.
Some are also citizens of israel, chertoff for example. I believe he also has a large
security consulting firm;
"heh, here is my card, please call if you are worried about the iranian nuclear
capability."
The dumbmasses will not be able to follow whatever bullshit narrative the deep state
invents to "prove" Russian collusion-hacking-global warming or whatever.
"... A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers. ..."
"... The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump. ..."
"... Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar. ..."
"... The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace. ..."
Special Report: As the New McCarthyism takes hold in America, the neocon Washington Post
makes Russia the villain in virtually every bad thing that happens, with U.S. dissidents
treated as fellow-travelers, writes Robert Parry.
Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that
blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who
dont go along with this New Cold War propaganda.
A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism
has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust
with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of
the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as
Communisms fellow travelers.
The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have
leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political
hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to
get Trump.
Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens
of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to combat Russian propaganda, i.e.,
funding of non-governmental organizations and scholars who target dissident Americans for
challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.
The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is
again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for
the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive regime change projects aimed at
Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on
Russia! Russia! Russia!
For instance, a Post
editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela
Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkels
austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open
door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to –
you guessed it – Russia!
The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many
Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of
Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old
Cold War.
The Post cited the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing
much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council
essentially is NATOs think tank and is financed with
money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial
institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the
expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.
Blaming Russia
In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon regime
change projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West,
such as Donald Trumps election and AfDs rise in Germany.
Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN
Photo)
The Atlantic Councils digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that In the
final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language bot-net."
Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to
President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required,
just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, trolls –
some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they
represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.
Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their
supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome
be disappointing.
The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S.
parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests
to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places
such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia
(the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.
Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit
for different reasons.
Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party
– and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and
weariness over Merkels three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see
Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.
Loving to Hate Putin
In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has
frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against
Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15;
Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine
in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed rebel forces in
Syria in 2015-17.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the
G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security
Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations
about Russian meddling in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify
destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another regime
change project in Moscow.
None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the
U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the
goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing: The United States has
the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do
so.
But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims
of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other
words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and
Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.
Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty
around the German pillar of Europe, the Post editorial said. He relishes infiltrating chaos and
mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily
cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.
Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There
is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some anonymous troll accounts
promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by a
Russian-language bot-net. Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an
objective source – where is the link to Putin?
Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin.
But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy
theory.
Silencing Dissent
Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a Kremlin
stooge or a Russian propagandist, another ugly campaign
spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis
that what youre saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.
The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington
Post)
On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post
article again pushed the unproven
suspicions about Russian operatives buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to
supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.
In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on
social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old
McCarthyism and the new.
Yes, its true that the Soviet Union denounced Americas racial segregation and cited that
ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement
and national liberation struggles in Africa. Its also true that American Communists
collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.
That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoovers FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other
African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected
Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because
his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africas
Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)
Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation
in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to
develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of Americas
segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.
Yet, Kings association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard
segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in
his honor in the 1980s.
These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly
acknowledged in the Posts news article on Tuesday, which cites Putins criticism of police
killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.
Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United
States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society, the article states. Putin
injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over
the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.
'Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the
United States? Putin told CBSs 60 Minutes program. If everything was perfect, there wouldnt be
the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all
these problems and respond properly."
The Posts speculative point seems to be that Putins response included having Russian
operatives buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence
to support that conspiracy theory.
However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest
the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as Putins fellow-travelers, much as King and
other civil rights leaders were smeared as Communist dupes.
Ignoring Reality
So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real
reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward populist and extremist
alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as
the work of Russian operatives.
Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook
and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt
down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button
issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may
have said something similar.
As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria –
driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly fascistic tendencies – they
might want to consider whom theyve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind
for the future.
Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to
arrive in the guise of protecting democracy from Russia or another foreign adversary than from
a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.
The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to
neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a
structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate
might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, Americas Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Its been going on since the arrival of the national security state after World War II. At
least for decades there really was a contest between Capitalism and Communism, not that it
excuses the lying and killing of millions. Now, its just a we rule the World habit. Is it
really getting worse? Perhaps so.
Erik G , September 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm
I would say that the dominance of economic power over democratic institutions has been
completely consolidated since WWII, accelerated under Reagan and after the collapse of the
USSR, and has been completed since 911. The articles conclusion that letting mainstream media
monopolize American political debate is a greater threat than Trump is quite an
understatement, appropriate to new readers.
More even than economic power (banks?) it is the intelligence agencies (all revolving
around the CIA) and the military-industrial complex. We could make progress in a lot of areas
if we could simply stop waging war, overt or covert, but it doesnt seem possible, partly
because the Deep State has become smart enough not to wage a war that requires a draft or
kills too many Americans. Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the
Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
Dave P. , September 27, 2017 at 11:41 am
SteveK9 – Your comments: Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having
the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.
That is how we suck the blood of the people of the World beyond the Wests borders –
by printing unlimited money, using cheap labor, taking over and exploiting their
resources.
The oppressed have also to pay to the oppressor for their own subjugation. That is how we
maintain our grand life style – as they boast every day on TV channels and elsewhere
– for the top 10%.
During the Soviet days, USSR was a hindrance to this Western Imperialism. And now again
some how it turns out that Russia is again becoming the protector of the Oppressed –
though they have themselves a kind of makeshift type of Capitalism at this stage.
Sam F , September 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm
The complete economic power of oligarchy (zionists/MIC/WallSt/corporations) over Congress,
judiciary, federal agencies, and mass media, results in thedeep state structure. Doubtless
there is further deep state gangsterism.
The US has been dominated by the economic power that arose in the 19th century, because
the emerging middle class failed to see that this would corrupt democratic institutions if
not severely regulated, and of course oligarchy soon controlled the press and excluded the
issue from public debate.
Kiza , September 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm
I find it truly fascinating that the US Deep State has changed the narrative through its
liberal MSM mouthpieces, since Zuckcrook $100K ad saga, that the Russian goal was not so much
to elect President Swamp then to saw chaos and discord in US. Let us look at the hidden
meaning of this:
1) the Deep State feels confident that President Swamp has been brought under control; only
the quasi-liberal wing of the Deep State still wants to impeach him (fat chance now that he
is well under control, if he ever was not yet another faux agent of change –
YAFAOC)
2) the rulers are truly concerned about the forthcoming challenge to their rule, which would
begin as unrest, chaos and possibly a civil war; ironically they are delivering a very
powerful tool to Putin by establishing parallels between US sedition and Putins words; this
means that, if he wanted, Putin could just state some obvious criticisms, a sore point of the
US/Global system and this becomes a point of oppression in US; such oppression can ultimately
have only one outcome for the oppressors.
In brief, it is always useful to monitor the official statements to deduce what is on the
rulers minds. They do not appear terribly self confident with their Putin ate my homework
stories. Putin is both the leader of the hated Eurasia and Putins face is morphing into
the face of the internal enemy Emanuel Goldstein .
Peter Loeb , September 27, 2017 at 7:22 am
STEVEK9
An excellent comment, Stevek9.
To continue responding is to play by the McCarthyist rules. Do I want
to circulate Robert Parrys excellent article (for the most part)? There
would be a collective reply that :the Russians are coming and a
groupthink diversions from WHAT the issues really are (oppression of
blacks in the US -- the real point of the NFL -- discussions usually hidden
under Do you like Trump?Do you hate Russia?And thus not
addressed or an article in Consortium yesterday on the Palestine/
Israeli conflict which was responded to mainly in terms of what
the Russians are doing etc. etc.
I remember the McCarthy era. My Dad had to sign a loyalty
oath. There were other forms such as the Harry Trumans
the Attorney Generals list, The Truman Doctrine, domino
theories etc.
The late historian Gabriel Kolko discussed this in the subsection
Violence and Social Control of his major work MAIN CURRENTS
IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY (part of Chapter 5 of that work).
No one is talking about the raw courage of so many black players
(mostly) who suddenly step away from their roles as entertainers
of the American society to remind us all that the US is considering
the murder of unarmed blacks as patriotic…heroic.
Instead, the issue is President Donald Trump and I can guess
that , like Hitler and Mussolini, he loves it with a passion.
What a dirty shame that in the US blacks demonstrating for
justice, for life, are attacked by police funded by the US
via private organizations such as those of Israel which provide
their particular expertise in how to oppress minorities --
accompanied by junkets for US law enforcement officials
for training in the Israeli efficiency in murder, oppression,
and inhuman treatment of those Zionists consider inferior
if human at all.
Dont read the above if you fear that its all the
fault of the Russians.
In French one once said Le revolution se mange..
(The revolution eats itself (se))
-- –Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I think the Woodrow Wilson 14-point plan legacy of helping to keep most of Europe
from going communist or trying to do so is overlooked For all of Wilsons lies, deals and
broken promises, I think his inclusive idealistic promise to ordinary people that is still
felt today (and may provide some of the origin of American accepted world leadership in
anti-communism). European democratic socialism arose to quell the unrest, expectations and
dissatisfaction of those same people after the fall of the empires. Remember all those Frank
Capra movies in which Americanism was a non-communist path to egalitarian future. (yes, Capra
was an anti-communist)
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed course Tuesday
and told Wisconsin officials that the Russian government did not scan the states voter
registration system.
Homeland Security told state elections officials on Friday that Wisconsin was one of 21
states targeted by the Russians, raising concerns about the safety and security of the
states election systems even though no data had been compromised. But in an email to the
states deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin
Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice was in
error.
Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department
of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa,
with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection.
It wasnt immediately known if Homeland Security made similar mistakes with any of the
other 20 states. Figueroa did not immediately reply to an email seeking an explanation of
how the mistake was made.
Dr. Ip , September 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm
Ive lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and what has been clear since the infamous
Agenda 2010 introduced during the reign of the SPD government under Schroeder, and the
reforms introduced by pseudo-Socialist governments in France, is that the same right wing
forces that have captured the US, Poland, Hungary and are threatening France and Spain, have
their roots (and subtle support) from the neoliberals preoccupied with wealth creation for
the few and the destruction of the social net for the many.
Endless war – a perpetuum mobile cash machine – and the attempt to actually
own the whole world, has led to a situation that is an updated version of the corporatist
fascism of the 30s and 40s. Destruction of the Left is acceptable because it clears a path
toward endless profit, and arousal of the Right is seen as profit-beneficial because the
uneducated masses that comprise this sector are in love with the illusion of one day
belonging to a group that will allow them to achieve wealth and power. Of course it never
will. But the unleashing of their anger and violence against all those perceived as superior,
especially in intelligence, allows them a catharsis of blood and death which eventually
consumes them.
People who are registered democrats often see the party as liberal, when in fact it is
not. Under Bill Clintons administration the party was pushed even further to the right. I
know many democrats who define themselves as progressive or liberals, and have bought into
the nonsense that Russia rigged the US election. I never perceived these people as
progressive, or liberal and most kept their mouths shut throughout the Obama administration,
although he engaged in policies, and practices that no real progressive, or liberal would, or
should find acceptable. If they were liberal or progressive in their thinking why would they
be so vulnerable to propaganda? Why would they be so easily manipulated if they were truly
progressive in their thinking, or not be able to see things from a broader perspective? To me
many democrats simply hate Trump, and cant accept that their whining, war candidate lost. And
how can you define yourself as progressive when you supported Hillary Clinton in the first
place? We should be careful how we use the word liberal, or progressive. It was under the
Obama administration that the new cold war really got underway.
Realist , September 27, 2017 at 8:43 am
What you are saying is so true, Annie, but far too many people allow these truths to be
obscured by the stereotypes they would rather cling to. I look at Obama as the great betrayer
of liberal or progressive causes. He was about as progressive as a Wall Street banker
investing his yearly bonus on choice foreclosed properties, or Mitt Romney picking the bones
of companies he buys to strip of assets.
Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Recommend Richard Wolfe on fire on RT tonight -- are we at the end of capitalism . cant
find a link to youtube.. but while this new mccarthyism hysteria probably (not) the sort of
death-throes ravings what one might hope for the reality is that we are past pablum,
nostrums, teaks and fixes -- none of which are still operative
Wolfe here is in fine form .
D5-5 , September 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm
b who runs the Moon of Alabama site has a similar view to Parrys on the WAPOs view of the
German election (and as always comments recommended):
"... Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter. ..."
"... I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming. ..."
"... If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin ..."
And US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) thinks that the Russians and their troll farms (as opposed
to Donald Trump and professional football players)
are behind the current take a knee kerfuffle between Donald Trump and professional football players.
Because, you know, Americans never had rowdy disagreements with each other over race and religion
until last year, and wouldnt be having them now if not for those dirty, no-good Russian hackers who
stole the 2016 presidential election from the second most hated candidate in history, on behalf of
the most hated candidate in history, operating through subterfuge to achieve the outcome that some
of us predicted months in advance, long before anyone mentioned Russian hackers.
*
Evidence? Who needs evidence? The people who hated the outcome and have been railing against it
for nearly a year now have told us what happened, and why, and whodunit, and theyd never lie to us
about something like that, would they? They lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction,
and about illegal wiretapping by the NSA, and about a thousand other things, but THIS is DIFFERENT.
Keep in mind that when all the most wild and baseless accusations (e.g. that !THEM RUSSIANS! hacked
the voting machines) are discarded, the basic claim remaining is this: By spreading fake news through
social media, !THEM RUSSIANS! fooled a bunch of Americans into voting the wrong way.
Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence
indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points
to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability
to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter.
I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators
of the new Red Scare are claiming.
If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists,
it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the
electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in
the hands of the gullible. Just sayin
*In May of 2016, I predicted that Donald Trump would carry every state Mitt Romney carried in
2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I didnt predict Wisconsin and Iowa, but 48 of
50 states from six months out aint too shabby, is it?
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian
Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
SANCTIONS. According to the
UN rapporteur , sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US$3.2 billion a month; the
Russian economy has lost US$55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US$155
billion.
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of
neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal
march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite
(nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the
leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC,
Deutsche Welle and
Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and
Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other
Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of
effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of
communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands
that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny
percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official
propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.
During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and
journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries
would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was
shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or
watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against
the rulers.
So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV
stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as
jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent
the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.
After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes
in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West
German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic
prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than
those who couldn't watch Western television.
But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The
Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient
protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government
successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional
wisdom.
As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany
more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more
politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole
people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."
Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were
actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.
The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to
have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had
attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium
of the people.'"
Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea:
Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides
free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in
Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov
contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political
problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and
watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.
Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun
to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy
P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.
Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and
can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who
cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race
spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according
to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had
during the Republican primaries that he won.
Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages
don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to
Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you
can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively
participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the
content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.
Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the
legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with
messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying
behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from
anger to dismissal to laughter.
In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network
purchased Current
TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched
an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the
government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to
manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.
Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news
shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease
operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its
ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al
Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.
You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media
environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks
like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno
sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large
American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.
That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America ,
but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by
launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China
Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster
China Central
Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated
with Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the
Russian
government that operates cable and satellitetelevision channels directed to
audiences outside of Russia.
After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news
junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of
the day watching these foreign networks?
Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another
Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the
Russian
government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players
in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency
to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral
interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing
influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the
network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly
impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.
According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media
properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have
been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic
order."
And in a long cover story in TheNew York Times Magazine this month, with the
headline, "
RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has
"built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be
impossible to stop."
But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to
reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most
successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can
access its channel, not those who actually watch it."
As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by
the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only
0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.
The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT
might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in
the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to
form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse
online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the
Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."
Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and
memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that
apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos
get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.
But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is
narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the
network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011
tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the
dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to
"undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT,
Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at
promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective,
these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of
the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th
Century.
The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great
Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social
anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist
parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.
But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize
East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union
at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as
symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.
Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the
producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were
interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the
majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the
content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to
it.
Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to
members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited
anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the
producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the
receivers.
There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American
political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win
the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That
pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained
some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former
World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then
Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's
Southern segregationist ticket.
Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch
of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential
election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were
even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by
Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")
Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian
propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining
more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of
the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of
Americans.
In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their
Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.
Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times,
The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and the National Interest.
For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during
the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat
by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.
RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.
It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very
diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled.
Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign
information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and
manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a
depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to
understand the world.
Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows
that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional
forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out
the external info.
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".
Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli
propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to
be.
Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign
meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most
sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.
The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China.
But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to
influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in
scale and impact.
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States,
have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can
dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."
It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today,
unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and
politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more
and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.
So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying
to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their
worldview in the process?
You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their
government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic
assertion.
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think
they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign
propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to
propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the
way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work
through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw
Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.
"... There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself? ..."
"... As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller ..."
"... In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan retained as of the end of August a still-active secret, numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in Alexandria. ..."
"... The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month. She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen government documents might also be resolved. ..."
"... Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11. ..."
"... how can one leverage content in this day and age if there is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports, delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine correlations. ..."
"... Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to bid her interests. ..."
"... The phenomenon will worsen, the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites. ..."
"... This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. ..."
"... Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the world. ..."
I wrote an article on the strange case
of Imran Awan about two months ago. To summarize it briefly, Awan, his two brothers and wife,
naturalized U.S. citizens born in Pakistan living in the Washington DC area, found employment
as IT administrators in the House of Representatives working for as many as
80 Democratic Party congressmen . Even though they may have had little actual training in
IT, they insinuated themselves into the system and were paid in excess of $5 million over the
course of ten years, chief-of-staff level pay, while frequently not even showing up for work.
They even brought into the arrangement a frequent no-show Pakistani friend whose prior work
history consisted of getting recently
fired by McDonald's .
Along the way, their security files were never reviewed. They were involved in bankruptcies,
bank fraud and other criminal activity, but their troublesome behavior was never noticed. They
were on bad terms with their father and step-mother, which including forging a document to
cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not
see their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from
them.
Imran Awan, the leader of the group, worked particularly for Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz, who was, at the time, also the Chairman of the Democratic National
Committee. Though he had no clearance and was not supposed to work with classified material, he
and his family obtained password access to congressional files and Imran himself was able to
enter Wasserman-Schultz's own personal iPad computer which linked to the server used by the
Democratic National Committee.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion by the Capitol Hill Police for having set up an operation involving
double billing as well as the possible theft and reselling of government owned computer
equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of
Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices'
separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. It was also believed
that Imran sent "massive" quantities of stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton,
Virginia. The police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that
there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but
Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested.
Imran was arrested on July 25 th at Dulles Airport as he was flying to Pakistan
to join his wife Alvi, who had left the country with their children and many of their
possessions in March. In January, they had also wired to Pakistan $283,000 that they had
obtained fraudulently from the Congressional credit union. After his arrest, Imran was defended
by lawyer Chris
Gowen , a high-priced $1,000 an hour Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons
personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born
IT specialists are selected and vetted prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to
work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals to keep
working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under
investigation has to be explained beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would
expect congressmen to err on the side of caution over an issue that could easily have national
security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran Awan wind up with
a high-priced Clinton-connected lawyer to defend himself?
As the story involves possible espionage, fraud and even something new to consider regarding
the theft of information from the DNC server, one might have expected the Fourth Estate to wake
from its slumber and take notice. But perhaps not surprisingly there has been astonishingly
little follow-up in the mainstream media about the Awan family, possibly because it involves
some leading Democrats, though the Daily Caller and some other conservative sites have
stayed on top of developments.
Since his arrest Imran Awan has had his passports confiscated by the court and has been
released on bail on condition that he wear an ankle monitor at all times and not travel more
than 50 miles from the Virginia home where he is staying with a relative. In early September,
he sought to have the monitor removed and his passports returned so he could travel to Pakistan
and visit his children. His plea was rejected. He is not yet scheduled for trial on the
allegations of bank fraud and is apparently still under investigation by the Bureau relating to
other possible charges, including possible espionage. His four accomplices are also still under
investigation but have not been charged. They are on a watch list and will not be allowed to
leave the United States while the inquiry is continuing.
It has also been learned that Imran had been on the receiving end of
complaints filed with the Fairfax County Virginia police in 2015-6 by two women who resided
in separate apartments in Alexandria that are reportedly paid for by Imran Awan. Both of the
women complained of abuse and one is believed to be a "second wife" for Imran Awan, legal in
Pakistan but illegal in the United States. Imran reportedly divorced his second wife shortly
after his arrest.
In a surprise development, investigative journalists have also determined that Imran Awan
retained as of the end of August a still-active secret,
numeric email account on the House of Representatives server. E-mail accounts in Congress
normally are labeled using the holder's name, so all active accounts are identity-linked as a
security measure. In this case the numeric account was linked to the actual account of a House
staffer who works on national security issues for Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana. Imran
Awan clearly has been using the anonymous House of Representatives address as it was cited in a
suit filed by a landlord seeking unpaid rent on an apartment rented for his second wife in
Alexandria.
The most significant recent development in the Awan case is, however, the
decision made by Imran's wife Alvi to return to the United States at the end of this month.
She has been charged as a co-conspirator relating to the bank fraud that her husband was also
involved in, which potentially could result in some jail time. There are, however, reports that
she has been interviewed several times in Pakistan by FBI agents and has apparently agreed to a
plea bargain to tell all she knows about what went on with the Awan family. Some on Capitol
Hill believe that what she knows could prove to be explosive, not only regarding the lax
security practices in Congress but also in terms of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's negligence in
providing access to the DNC server. The actual whereabouts of the large quantity of stolen
government documents might also be resolved.
This story, which is still unfolding, continues to have the potential to blow wide open the
complacent culture on Capitol Hill and it also might ruin the reputations of a number of
leading Democrats. Stay tuned!
Something about this is strange. It is as if Imran Awan and his group were not really
hired for IT purposes.It is perhaps noteworthy that Pakistani spooks have been intertwined with American events
for years. For example, there was a Pakistani connection to 9/11.
There is a Pakistani connection to CIA and related sorts of things. One wonders what kind
of work these Pakistanis were really doing for Wasserman-Schultz and others involved ! and
what kind of things Debbie and the Americans she is connected to are involved in.
Of course, it could have the potential of a massive scandal, but If the inner circles of
the Dems, especially the criminal machinations of the Clintons and their stooges are
concerned, the mainstream media will keep mum. So far, they have always covered up their
dubious and dirty tricks. The American political system within the Beltway is so rotten and
corrupt that everybody will be affected if the slightest connection comes to the fore. Take
the so-called Russian hacking as a case in point. It's all bogus, but the investigation
continues by the Clinton stooge named Robert Mueller.
The US establishment reminds me of a poorly knitted jumper with many threads sticking out.
So it desperately prevents, using the intelligence services, the police and the media it
controls, any investigation because if one would pull one thread successfully the whole thing
would unravel in its full perverted glory of deprevity (the whole Demopublican establishment
that is).
No surprises, the quality of politicians worldwide is embedded in the system. The question
asked: how can a meritocracy apply extended family, friend and sex-mates, to the selection
system consequently. Another, how can one leverage content in this day and age if there
is no thorough knowledge of the tools behind any information system. Put congressmen and
women to the test, how many have questions as use of data protocol, firewall, ports,
delegated to "specialist", and loyal (the accent on loyal) collaborators without a notion of
what they even delegate. If living in an area of specialization, the notion of minimal
knowledge and comprehension might be at least a thorough understanding of man – machine
correlations.
Hillarious Hillary neither, did have a notion of any technicalities of tools applied to
bid her interests. "Boom", "Boom", "oBama", was using computers to play "drone of doom".
Politicians dress, groom, prepare and travel to public moments of extroversion, and that's
it. Very busy critters, highly un-focused beyond anything deeper then egocentric looks and
sway of an actor. It works, there is a public, "deplorable", "gens de rien" ignorance
carrying them, complicit media and scientists, sustaining them. The phenomenon will worsen,
the glue will thicken into further layers of ignorance. The Moore law? The more complex
society, the bigger the ignorance of the elites.
A suggestive test: time employment over years in office would uproot the sterling
conclusion that politicians, administrators of public affairs have simply no time and energy
left to analyze anything beyond their public person's direct interests. Systemic, in all
branches, our elites are simply not up to par. And that "works", in occurrence the state of
affairs worldwide, in the long term, in depth.
For those who are unfamiliar with US involvement in South Asia: Pakistan's military and
intelligences services are funded by America (just as Egypt's are). Pakistani intelligence
and army has long been a CIA stooge and that goes since the 80s and even before that. It was
Pakistanis who were training the mujahideen to fight Russia in Afghanistan during the cold
war. So no one is surprised when Pakistani ISI chief is here in US during the execution of
9/11. Throughout much of the world, 9/11 is seen as a plot of American government.
By the way, do you seriously think Pakistani army which survives on American funding would
bite the hand that feeds it by secretly giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden? If that was truly
the case, as government said during their s0-called raid in Pakistan that supposedly killed
Osama, would the US government still be giving billions to Pakistan's army? Pakistan's army,
like Egypt's army and Turkey's army, are supported by America as a way of subverting
democracy in those countries. Unfotunately American public's general knowledge of what
America funds and how it conducts itself with other countries is so low that it is impossible
for the majority to have any kind of reality based understanding of what their taxes are
paying for and how it does not support "freedom" but the opposite of it throughout the
world
This is big. I would like to know, what are Awans credentials that qualified him for the
IT position and who hired him? Someone had to vouchsafe for Awan and who is that person? Who
approved his salary and why was there no review or audit? Apparently, someone, or some
organization wanted to control a large block of the Congress. Was it Clinton, was it
Intelligence, the Mossad, Rothschilds, Russia?
I would imagine that her calls were being
monitored and her involvement known.
Audacity and chutzpah of Imran Awan's operation right away made me think of post-military
service Israeli youth running various scams and intelligence gathering errands all over the
world. Only people with a strong awareness of being the untouchable sacred cows and/or
somebody with a strong back up of security services can behave like this.
Each year, 75,000 soldiers are discharged from the Israel Defense Force. A third of them
then travel across Asia and South America, supporting businesses at home and abroad.
"... Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions. ..."
"... Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. ..."
"... Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC! ..."
"... Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless ..."
"... Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't. ..."
"... SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton). ..."
The promotional video of the Committee to Investigate Russia features actor Morgan Freeman
in what is 'probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy,' says AlterNet's Max
Blumenthal
Outside the government, there's a lot of going on, too. Media outlets and liberal
organizations have devoted extensive time and energy to Russiagate. This week, a new group
joined the fray. It's called the Committee to Investigate Russia. Its board includes Rob
Reiner, the well-known actor, producer, and liberal activist, and several right-wing pundits,
including David Frum, the man who coined George W. Bush's infamous phrase, the 'axis of
evil.'
The committee's kickoff video features the actor Morgan Freeman.
MORGAN FREEMAN: We have been attacked. We are at war. We need our president to speak
directly to us and tell us the truth. We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and
say, "My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by the Russian
government. I've called on the Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource
available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. The free
world is counting on us for leadership. For 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example
to the world of what we can all aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought
and died to protect this great nation and save democracy, and we owe it to our future
generations, to continue the fight."
VOICEOVER: Join the Committee to Investigate Russia. Join the fight.
AARON MATE: Joining me is Max Blumenthal, bestselling author, journalist, senior editor of
AlterNet's Grayzone Project, and cohost of the new podcast Moderate Rebels. Max, welcome. I'm
going to predict that you're not joining this fight.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: This is sad. It's sad for Morgan Freeman, and I think whatever you think
about Russia, you can agree with me that this is probably his worst role since Driving Miss
Daisy. Now he's driving, basically, the PNAC train, Project for a New American Century, driving
the neocons. This is highly unusual for me, maybe I'm wrong here, to hear a black American say
that America has been a shining example of democracy for 241 years. It sounds like something a
neocon would write in a script and put for Morgan Freeman in a teleprompter. 200 years ago, or
longer, he would have been scrubbing Thomas Jefferson's chamberpot, so this is just deeply
disturbing American exceptionalism.
Beyond that, Morgan Freeman has basically been brought into this by Rob Reiner, who's been
brought in by a cast of neocons, not just unindicted Iraq War criminal David Frum, who crafted
the axis of evil phrase, which has helped spread instability and death around the world, but
Max Boot, the neoconservative pundit and self-styled historian who's never met a war he didn't
like. We also have James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence and NSA director
affiliated with this group, the Committee to Investigate Russia. Max Boot is a fellow at the
Institute for the Study of War, which is run by Kimberly Kagan, who's part of the
neoconservative Kagan dynasty. The Institute for the Study of War is funded primarily by the
arms industry and surveillance industry, and their job is basically to gin up wars and consult
for generals, and make a windfall profit in the process.
That's what the Committee to Investigate Russia is about. It brings this Hollywood element
to it. Rob Reiner's involvement helps get David Frum on CNN and a host of radio and MSNBC
programs. It almost makes a neocon like him seem likable, although he and Max Boot were
welcomed with open arms by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, so in many ways we're
experiencing still the toxic alluvia of the Clinton camp with this bizarre initiative.
We have to first ask, what is the Committee to Investigate Russia? It reminds me of the
Committee on the Present Danger, which was a Cold War collection of neoconservatives, as well
as the Project for a New American Century, which was a larger conglomeration of
neoconservatives looking to take advantage of the post-Cold War atmosphere to gin up a war on
terror. What they said in their initial document was that, "Short of a catalyzing event, we
won't be able to realize our goals." Three years later, 9/11 happened, and that was the
catalyzing event.
They are attempting to manufacture a catalyzing event through the narrative of Trump-Russia
collusion in order to ramp up hostilities with Russia, not just in Russia's near abroad in
Ukraine, but also in Syria and across the world. This is an incredibly dangerous prospect.
AARON MATE: There was a piece today in the Daily Beast picking up on this Facebook story,
which you and I haven't discussed yet on the Real News, but it's gotten a lot of attention. A
few weeks ago, Facebook disclosed that some $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads by suspected
Russian accounts that may be tied to the Kremlin. It was a bit ambiguous. Most of the ads were
in 2015, a year before the election, and most of the ads, Facebook said, were not even directly
to do with the election but about divisive social issues. This was taken as another new level
of Russian influence in the U.S.
Just today, on the Daily Beast, which has been all over this story, there's an exclusive
story written by four reporters. A team of four reporters writes, "Exclusive. Russians appear
to use Facebook to push Trump rallies in 17 U.S. cities." Subheading is, "Being Patriotic, a
Facebook group uncovered by the Daily Beast, is the first evidence of suspected Russian
provocateurs explicitly mobilizing Trump supporters in real life."
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Maybe it's true. Maybe these four reporters found something that might be
true, but if you read into the ninth paragraph of that article, like so many articles about
Russiagate, these four reporters, the finest minds of the Daily Beast, including Spencer
Ackerman, who wrote the foreword to Russiagate huckster Malcolm Nance's book on how the
election was stolen, and I think his book might have come out before the election was decided,
if you read into the ninth paragraph that the story is not confirmed, that Facebook explicitly
states that it cannot confirm that any of these accounts are Russian accounts. Throughout the
article, the authors are forced to refer to them as suspected Russian accounts. I don't know
how this got past an editor, except that there is so much zeal at the Daily Beast to keep up
the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that generates clicks.
That's the same, I would assume, mentality that prevails among the producers among Rachel
Maddow's show, which you wrote about really clearly and effectively. I think it's not just the
narrative that's driven by political zeal but also the desire for ratings and clicks. At no
point in this piece do they ever establish that these are Russian accounts. It is possible that
this Facebook accounting question, was a Facebook account turned to a Russian bot farm, that's
what a lot of accounts do. They pay some bot farm to boost their profile on Facebook. One of
the things that bot farms do is they'll direct users to political ads, political hot button
issues, because that's what gets people engaged.
Again, there's no evidence here. What I found really interesting about this article, and
this is true for the previous Daily Beast article that Spencer Ackerman published about
Facebook suspected, alleged, possible Russian bots, is that he turns to a fake Russia expert
named Clint Watts, who's a former FBI agent. If you actually look at Clint Watts's work, and
you're just remotely informed about politics in the U.S., I think you'll realize that character
is a complete crank. If we actually lived in an actual meritocracy that relied on real experts,
he would be out with a metal detector looking for loose change on the beach or in some public
park, but instead, he was testifying before Congress.
He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clint Watts, that the chaos of Black
Lives Matter was spawned by RT and Sputnik. He links to an RT article about Black Lives Matter
as his evidence. Along with the Bundy ranch chaos. This too was a Russian active measure. Yeah,
the Bundy ranch. Russia had a huge hand in that. This is someone testifying before the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
Even worse, he goes on to talk about an article he wrote with Will McCants and Mike Doran,
who are these Beltway think tankers presented as terror experts. He wrote it in Foreign
Affairs, which is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was an article lobbying
the U.S. government, the Obama administration, to send arms to Ahrar Al-Sham, which is a Salafi
jihadist rebel group in Syria. The teaser of this article, it's unbelievable, is, "An Al
Qaeda-linked group we can be friends with."
The article comes out. Clinton Watts gets mocked heavily on Twitter. I think I might have
been among the people mocking him, but again, I'm a Russian bot. [Inaudible]. I'm
malfunctioning right now. No, actually, real people mocked Clint Watts on Twitter justifiably.
He was calling for supporting an Al Qaeda alliance in Syria. He goes before the Senate and says
that, "This is when I noticed that there were Russian active measures and an influence
campaign, because I was being mocked on Twitter for this article." He doesn't say what the
article is. He covers up the content.
This testimony elucidates the kind of Russia experts that are being relied on to prove that
there's this vast information warfare campaign, this Gerasimov doctrine, employed by Russia.
Clint Watts is part of a larger initiative spun out of the failed Clinton campaign. It includes
people like Laura Rosenberger, who was a former policy advisor of Hillary Clinton. This should
scare anyone. Consider that these people would have been involved in foreign policy decisions.
Andrew Weisberg I think is another, and then there's J.M. Berger, who's part of the terror
jihadology industry. He never really established himself as much of a major expert there, but
now the hype is all around Russia, so he's rebranded himself as a Russia expert.
They have an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you go on the
Alliance for Securing Democracy's website, it's almost as entertaining as the Committee to
Investigate Russia. They have a chart that shows the Russia information threat matrix. They're
addressing all of the different websites, including the National Review, maybe they'll name the
Real News today, that are echoing Kremlin propaganda. How do they determine what the Kremlin's
propaganda is? They not only look at RT and Sputnik, they have a list that they've refused to
release of 600 Russian bots or Russian-controlled social media accounts. As I said, they refuse
to name what these social media accounts are.
Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, he published another one of these exposes that
exposes nothing, and by the ninth paragraph, you realize the whole thing is unconfirmed and
it's based on suspicions and speculation. He determined that a lot of these supposed Russian
bots he was supposed to be looking at were actually real people, one you can look it is Marcel
Sardo, real people who just simply don't believe in a unipolar world, and they support Russia
as a counterhegemonic force. I know this is impossible for Beltway insiders and coastal elites
to believe, but there are people who actually think that way and are on Twitter.
You're basically looking at a gigantic scam. Scams are bad as they are. Amway's bad. It rips
a lot of people off and makes money for right-wingers. This is a pro-war scam that has
effectively deep-sixed diplomacy with Russia, which could have been effective in establishing
stability in certain areas. 1.4 million people are displaced in Ukraine. Syria's a complete
mess. The U.S. has to work with Russia there to defeat ISIS. This is just dangerous on a global
scale, and so it's important to call out these scam initiatives and to completely scrutinize
and hound the fraudmeisters and neocons behind it.
AARON MATE: All right, that's going to wrap part one of this discussion with Max Blumenthal.
Stay tuned for part two.
Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the
award-winning author of Goliath, Republican Gomorrah, and The 51 Day War. He is the co-host of
the podcast, Moderate Rebels. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.
Why isn't Max Blumenthal's great book, "The 51 Day War," listed above? Its
omission seems odd and deliberate. Also, "Driving Miss Daisy" was not a bad role for Morgan. It
was an excellent snap shot of the south at the time and the reduction of two representatives of
that era into real people. Never mind.
Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode
into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just
fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless
conclusions.
Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from
consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a
man I greatly admire.see more
Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason?
The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would
expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC!
Now the dollar is starting to collapse, note each nation America are at loggerheads with, have
all stopped using or want to stop using the dollar. So, yes, they fabricated the hype and move
onto N Korea, because Russia wouldn't play ball and fire the first shot!
Perhaps Kim Jung-Un
can be tricked into this move? It also throws a spanner in the works against the Chinese One
Belt One Road [Eurasian Union] that also threatens American hegemony & dollar.
see more
Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group
makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based
on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the
project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless.
Right on, and well said Max!
Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could
go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and
beliefs; but I won't.
On the other hand, here we have the "liberals" of the West coast. Bad losers! Alas, Hillary,
"the queen of chaos" lost, and the Hollywood crowd "lost their mind." And regarding Morgan Freeman, highly disappointing and utterly pathetic.
Morgan is a "natural character actor"- while I enjoy some of his movies, he could easily
be "Morgan Freeman" in each role. I understand his desire to work and perhaps make more
money-he is a paid spokesman I presume. Morgan possesses mo particular geopolitical or
economic expertise that I am aware of: enough about Morgan.
SCAM is the correct word. Now
after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks
(Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing
to do with clinton).
Why won't Clinton go away?- she is just Not personable enough to get
elected against someone more personable. This is why Trump and Obama won.
I believe she could have beat Jeb and some other GOP hopefuls who also are not as personable.
This DEM meme is all about trying to set itself up for 2018 elections and perhaps to try to
bring Trump down before he does some AWFUL things such as: Open up a truly independent 911
investigation; release the JFK files "unclassified" (The CIA would probably not comply)
Incidentally the CIA was never Congressionally approved -- Trump could eliminate them with an
executive order; of course then we would see direct evidence of the shadow governments power.
What concerns me is that we do not see: Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Shipp, Robert
Steele, Stephen Cohen in RN interviews? Is RN reporting its funding sources on its site?
Donatella • 4 days ago
A sign of the Democrat party's desperation is its embrace of the always-wrong
warmongering neocons. Hillary embraced them during her campaign assuming that it would
bring her Republican votes as Chuck Schumer seemed to think. Max Boot is part of this
joint Democrat/Neocon propaganda "Committee to Investigate Russia", there is an excellent
interview of him at the link below.
Lawmakers want the FCC to investigate the Russia-backed
Sputnik Radio for using "U.S. airwaves to influence the
2016 presidential election," apparently not realizing
that Sputnik wasn't on the radio until July 2017, says
Max Blumenthal
"... It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion. ..."
"... The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit. ..."
"... "The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be." ..."
"... Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners. ..."
"... There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred. ..."
"... Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined. ..."
The Obama White House and some Democratic officials
pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and
political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to
California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:
By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political
issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from
accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.
All hailed Facebook - finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian
campaign on.
It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over
two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2
billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.
Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be
"associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were
a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to
Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with s ome ads
promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting
that these same groups pose a rising political threat , say people familiar with the covert
influence campaign.
The Russian campaign ! taking advantage of Facebook's ability to send contrary messages to
different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics ! also
sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat
Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.
(Note again - there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a
"Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)
As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the
narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump
elected. That no longer holds:
"Their aim was to sow chaos," said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. "In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than
increasing turnout."
How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay
Senator Warner's secret.
Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow
discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause
controversies.
The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the
"Russian influence" baloney . It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it
goes even further. An editorial now claims
that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last
minute tweets from some Twitter bots:
The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere !
faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin's quest to
disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may
have found a toehold.
No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented
that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:
In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of
possible election fraud, and the online alarms were "driven by anonymous troll accounts and
boosted by a Russian-language botnet," according to the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic
Research Lab.
The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East)
interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian
new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims
to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters.
Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about
election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more
than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany - (not!).
Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take
vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would
not effect the vote. German officials have found no
sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.
What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for
undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic US
megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:
[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is
an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.
Rosenwald's site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content
about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated
to support the AfD.
Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made
up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive
election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton
Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France
is ignored.
The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss
of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to
push the new
cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the
"Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence"
the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is
something out of la-la-land.
If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and
journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence"
could ever be.
Posted by b on September 26, 2017 at 01:50 PM |
Permalink
Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the
rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.
O, it hurts. The irony, it hurts. Repeating myself from the end of the last thread: The
whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents
and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human
spirit.
There is nothing illegal about attempting to influence another nation's elections. However,
in most countries, it is illegal for citizens to actively work with foreign governments to do
so.
Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media
daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda
everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners.
Not sure what illegal thing there is with political ads to begin with?
Again there is no logic to the brainwashed liberal.
There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are
sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred.
That is news to me.
I think you have to label it '
treason ' and the country concerned 'enemy' to get anywhere in law. Or some illegality has to be involved. Is
Russia America's Enemy?
"James Gardner, an election law expert at SUNY Buffalo Law School, said the answer to
whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia "depends on what specific actions formed the
basis of collusion." Political historian Allan Lichtman agreed, saying indictments and
prosecutions would depend upon the particular circumstances of a case and interpretations of
the law that are not always clear.
Both Lichtman and Gardner said the federal statute criminalizing treason could apply.
But putting aside treason, "there are numerous laws" that could be implicated by collusion
with any foreign government, Lichtman said.
Those include the Logan Act, which forbids dealings by private individuals with foreign
governments involved in disputes with the US; the Stored Communications Act, which creates
Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections for email and other digital communications; and the
Espionage Act.
John Coates, an election law expert at Harvard University Law School, pointed to
relevant federal statutes that could apply, including at least two federal statutes governing
campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals and two governing fraud and
conspiracy offenses."
Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com
pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that
Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined.
I usually can't miss by always first assuming that reports by officials or media in the West
are disinformation narratives.
I also am usually right to assume that they project on some other what these vermin in the
West are in themselves. They tell us what they are planning or already doing right out of
their mouths if you listen carefully.
@ Karlofi 8 "The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook."
Untouchable he is. In addition to being well subsidized on every shipment by the
taxpayers, he is owned by that famous 3-letter agency. Look up the contract.
AND... endlessly parroted at need by the neocons. This entire thing really isn't a
left/right or red/blue deal - it's pro-war and pro-intervention propaganda from the elite
rich of both sides in the US.
in other related news, hillary clinton has influenced her good friends in saudi arabia to let
women drive.... for all the money they gave her to lose the election, that was the least she
could do for the women of saudi arabia!
They are basically doing to Trump what Republicans did to Clinton with the Libyan
investigation - keep going on and on to accidentally uncover something relevant in the
end.
My iphone gives me a news feed that is often from CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC
news. It is constant Trump bashing. No useful news if any at all on such things as Syria,
economic issues (other than the DOW), health care (other than insurance friendly
Congressional nonsense). All useful news has to be found on alternative media of which this
site is definitely one of the best on Syria.
Look, if Whitewater, Vince Flynn's murder, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Pizzagate don't need
evidence that leads somewhere, neither does Russian hacking. Pussies whining because their
loser boy Trump doesn't have the prestige actually winning the election would give him is
stupid, useless and boring. Go cry in the Electoral College.
Puting favored Trump. Tough shit if jingo xenophobia is dogmatically acceptable to
conservatives. That's going to be an embarrassment.
It's true that Putin was a gigantic fool for favoring Trump, but that's his shame to
bear.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
I backed Bernie and several Dem candidates back when that seemed to matter. Because of that I
get about 50 plus emails a day asking for money. ALL without exception begin with a Trump
bashing statement, each more strident than the last (probably because I am not giving them
anything).
As you noted, there is nothing about Syria, loads about Russians, vague invasion hysteria
regarding Ukraine,endless black/white nonsense and don't get me started on the latest
flag/NFL rants.
I've protested in person and in writing just about every military adventure the US was ever
involved in during my life time and until the last few years it was a fairly lonely process.
But now, the level of information on and rejection of the Syrian war appears to be as high as
it was at the end of the Vietnam war. So we are getting somewhere, maybe. What is that
number, is it 13 percent of a population that is needed to create real change?
Bezos is nothing more than an apparatchik of the new USSA. Amazon is the company store. There
is no "boycotting" the company store. And anyway it's too late for that. You WILL read the
company newsletter, you WILL watch those writings being reinforced on the Company Channel
Network, you WILL shop at the company store, you WILL be surveilled by the company in order
to maintain company supremacy and ever-increasing profits.
As long as the company 'owns' the water you drink and the land you live on at least. And
it's not Bezos who owns the company, he's just on the board.
"It's hard to deal with people who confuse Austria and Australia, but there's nothing you
can do about this," he said, probably referring generally to Washington foreign policy
circles, though the original gaffe is attributed to former President George W. Bush.
"Apparently, this is the level of political culture within a certain part of the U.S.
establishment."
The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election
to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several
bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet
and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.
Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neoliberal trade
policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.
The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly
internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to
unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by
claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to
a massive Russian conspiracy.
Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb
Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a
Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy -
that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what
flogging the Russia hype is all about.
Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office,
someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for
their role in the 2008 economic collapse.
Fortunately, it's not that bad--yet. But it will probably need to get close to that before
the disparate US citizenry arises in an attempt to overcome it all.
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.
Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.
I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished"
party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment
to the country.
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation
to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.
The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result
in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated
by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.
Peace is not
in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis,
and this could not be allowed to happen .
David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors,
many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch
hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from
the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies,
and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.
But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions
to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return.
In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but
himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.
When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises
to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before
he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.
The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White
House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.
You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!
The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power'
is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.
"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view
from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.
This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern
Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's
Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed
out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html
and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting
to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their
corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.
Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.
Implosion or not, it is definitely an attempt to internal problems including the collapse
of neoliberal ideology by unleashing a
witch hunt in best Senator McCarthy style. One motivation might be suppressing any critique of
neoliberalism by equating it to pro-Russian propaganda. This is very much in best USSR
traditions, where propaganda was preoccupied with foreign enemies which were constantly trying to
undermine the state...
So far it proved to be a very effective tool for marginalizing the dissent. As in 1984:
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control – used by the
American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty.
Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling
class from their own rotten, internal decay.
This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet
Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no
matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by
governments and official regulators.
The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US
political class is more virulent than ever.
This week it was evident from Congressional
hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of
American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is
a malign foreign adversary.
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems
to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications
which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary
Russophobia – demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces – does not have
the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news
media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example
allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy
skepticism – if not ridicule by many Western citizens.
What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider
public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially
in the US. The political class – the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media – are
frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some
kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.
But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens.
Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread
damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war";
that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" –
all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class
. Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy
the claims or view them as idle chatter.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged
Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have
become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that
they have already made", said Peskov.
Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their
own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.
Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician
Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt
capitalist economy over several decades – the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for
demise by blaming it all on Russia.
The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure
in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread
disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That
is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity,
as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.
Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment
to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.
The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation,
told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia.
This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of
the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.
The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep
of the White House".
Other news outlets are openly
airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.
The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration
is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of
suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.
President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms
because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.
When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was
reported
to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month,
the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.
What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little
evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo
and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".
Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this
week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between
the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.
Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends
of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.
Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal
investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the
existence of any evidence.
And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House
was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate
media.
Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake.
That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case.
But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.
That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves
apart in a futile civil war.
The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer
having legitimacy to govern.
This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but
a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.
trulz4lulz -> Logan 5 •Mar 24, 2017 9:15 PM
I've been MSM-free for so long now, I forgot who I'm supposed to be hating this week!! I see the
effects in sooo many of my friends though, more so on the left, than the right. Which is odd....? Or
maybe it isn't, due to their mental retardation. Ohh well...game on.
stizazz -> trulz4lulz •Mar 24, 2017 9:44 PM
Russophobia has been ongoing since W Bush. They just want to keep Trump on the World War 3 track.
Bolsevism, apart being a russian word, is at home in US, originated in US, was nurtured by US
money and was, still is, the main US export (topic: imperial US wars).
hoyeru (not verified) •Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM
Whether the Soviet Union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an
enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a
nightmare.
Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed
off about it.
daveO -> hoyeru •Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by
coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight.
As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)...
MEFOBILLS -> daveO •Mar 25, 2017 3:31 AM
Oceania is always against a land power arising, including Eurasia.
Another wrinkle that is important: Feminized Western Societies. Russia is now a traditional
masculine society, while the west has been feminized. (Judaized and Feminized are similar - both
operate with deception)
Femine societies lash out, don't forgive, make dubious alliances, and fight underhanded.
The table at the bottom of link above describes the differences in wartime behavior between the
two types of societies.
Since Trump is masculine, he naturally will be more instinctively in alignment with Putin and
Russia.
nmewn •Mar 24, 2017 9:22 PM
Isn't it interesting that Russian government officials simply say "Veee don't comment on state
spying activities" while in American government officials simply pass it directly to their media
cronies who are quoted in newspapers and on TeeeVeee?
Anonymously...of course ;-)
DuneCreature •Mar 24, 2017 9:31 PM
Did we declare war on Russia while I was taking a nap?
What is the hell is going on with the raving Russian hacker meltdown horseshit? ... Bill Gates
and the NSA camps out on my network every time I turn it on? .. Do I get to declare war and run
to the UN for sanctions on Ft Meade?
Will Insane McCain get charged for fraternizing with ISIS Big Bagdaddy?
... ... ...
Cabreado •Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM
"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a
symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."
More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that
the real heart of US politics?)
And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists. This is why they
("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.
francis scott f... •Mar 24, 2017 10:14 PM
Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion ? may be Symptom of Deep State implosion
dark_matter •Mar 24, 2017 10:36 PM
The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of
superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or
Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. Should
Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost
confidence in their own way of life. ~Eric Hoffer in True Believer
Escapeclaws -> dark_matter •Mar 25, 2017 2:49 AM
That book was written eons ago in "historical time". Now Americans, being ever more
stomped upon and ground down are identifying with the victims of totalitarian ideologies, like
the Russians under Bolshevism. We have our our own Bolsheviks. Like the Bolsheviks, they will
kill millions of their fellow citizens if all goes according to plan (20 Million in Russia under
the Bolsheviks). History doesn't rhyme, it repeats. THE NEOCONS--THEY WANT YOU DEAD!
Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 3:37 AM
Look at US inequality:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/557ef766ecad04fe50a257cd-960/screen shot 2015-06-15 at
11.28.56 am.png
A picture paints a thousand words. American philanthropists sponsor right wing think-tanks to
make people believe those at the top need more.
Look behind Trump when he talks from one of his residences, not everything is covered in gold
leaf. He does need more. The US is being ransacked by its own elite and who are not going to take
any responsibility for their own greed, so they are blaming the Russians.
Looking on the bright side. A nation with military bases in almost every nation on Earth is
ransacked by its own elite, a source of great amusement for generations to come (outside the US).
American exceptionalism – exceptionally stupid.
Batman11 -> Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 4:03 AM
Add it to the list of things that will last forever: The British Empire, The Thousand Year
Reich, American exceptionalism
krage_man •Mar 25, 2017 5:02 AM
Russophobia is just the result of the clash of 2 irreconcilable things. The first one is
about USA being the superpower, controlling world affairs. The second one is that Russia's
economy, influence, military power and state management by Putin government actually prevent USA
from dominating Russia and its affairs.
It is internal conflict in the mind of Deep State figures. The only way is to either
prove that the USA status by dominating Russia, or to adjust self vision as the only superpower
and accept the changing world. Trump was elected to follow the later, but the deep
state/establishment is unable to see anything other that the former as the way forward. So
Russophobia is to keep all society following the way of dominance and to prevent Trump adopting
more rational way of agreeing on sphere of influence with Russia.
BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 6:15 AM
Can Russia be trusted?
Russia tells Britain give back Gibraltar & Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back Gibraltar and the Falkland
Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine.
Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his
British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. (Daily Express
4 Feb 2017)
Do the Spanish have a claim to the Rock? Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...
Perhaps not.
Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be
returned' ?
No, of course Russia cannot be "trusted". Their governmen is no better than anyone elses.
Mimir -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
Spain is continuously claiming the return of Gibraltar to Spain. (Was conquered in 1704)
When it comes to Falkland Islands, according to all International maritime agreements and
especially United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is very difficult to argue that
the Falkland Islands is part of the UK. It would be for the International Court of Justice to
solve the dispute.
I think Russia has a point.
d edwards -> Last of the Middle Class •Mar 25, 2017 8:12 AM
Seems the only one's with Russophobia are the f ing neomarxist dems who need a scapegoat for
their loses over the last eight years under 0dumbo.
brushhog •Mar 25, 2017 7:40 AM
Its very simple, those in charge need an outside enemy to blame and to try to unite the people
against. The worse things get, the louder they will cry wolf and the more threatening they will
become towards Russia.
The global elitists would rather end the world in a nuclear holocaust then let go of power and
admit they're to blame.
Beans •Mar 25, 2017 7:53 AM
The whole Russophobia gimmick in the West is purely a Zionist fiction created to punish the
White Christian Russians for daring to assert themselves. Connect the dots between Jewish
political/business interests in Ukraine, Russia and the US Congress/Executive branch/Governmental
agencies and you quickly see how everything falls into place. Free yourselves, White Christian
Americans.
Faeriedust -> Beans •Mar 25, 2017 1:38 PM
Not all Jews are Bankers. Not all Bankers are Jewish. There is, however, a significant
overlap.
Beans -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 4:16 PM
Yeah sure, you're absolutely right. Another way of putting it is by saying; 'Not all Jews were
Bolsheviks. Not all Bolsheviks were Jews'... The historically indisputable fact however, is that
about 85 to 90% of the members of the first Bolshevik government of 'Soviet' Russia was indeed
Jewish ;)
Of course they try to influence our elections. Now step back. Ever heard the name Victoria
Nuland? Phillip of Makedon? Or perhaps The Great Game? In point of fact, major players in world
domination ALWAYS try to influence both rivals and all the bit players who have something they
want. And the Russians play hardball, no question about that. But generally, with their OWN
dissidents, not other people's. Ask Trotsky's ghost. Politics is a full-contact sport. The only
exception is when all the players belong to the same League, and the League bans anyone who
breaks the rules. Right now, there IS no league. So yes, Putin plays hard. The CIA does, too.
aloha_snakbar •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM
However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population
seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday.
Im hiding under a desk... I cant hear you...
VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM
Commiey is a stooge of the deep state. Someone has some serious dirt on him.
Caleb Abell -> VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 11:01 AM
Along those lines, Comey may have derailed Clinton because elements of the deep state wanted
her gone, and they were willing to accept Trump on a temporary basis. Now that Clinton is out of
the picture, they can work on replacing Trump (one way or the other) with the much more compliant
Pence.
CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:31 PM
This article would have an even stronger case if it weren't based on a false premise. The
Soviet Union WAS a threat to the West; that wasn't propaganda. Now Russia isn't a threat and it
is propaganda.
Thus it is even more obvious that the US/Western elite are hunting for a way to demonize
Russia, and we need look no further than Russia/China's efforts to escape the World banking
structure for the reason.
Faeriedust -> CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:42 PM
That's really debateable. Remember, the Soviet Union was our ALLY in WWII. Stalin was a
batshit thug, and we (not to mention the Russians) were well rid of him. BUT -- immediately after
his death the USSR was taken over by a committee of Experienced Old Men who were willing and able
to be pragmatic.
Try to remember that when the Bolshevik Revolution started, both the English and the Americans
weren't sure whether to support it or oppose it. Then Lenin and Trotsky decided to default on the
Russian war debt -- which they had NO way of paying. Suddenly they became the world's greatest
evil. Many high-ranking foreign service specialists in Britain even supported Hitler, initially,
with the idea that they would turn him loose against the Russians and sit back to watch the
fireworks. Of course, that was before Hitler repudiated Germany's WWI war debt. Do you see a
pattern yet?
The issue was ALWAYS the wealth, profit, and survival of the banks. ALWAYS.
CRM114 -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 1:12 PM
I suggest you read some more history. You are making links for which there is only
circumstantial evidence, whereas the alternatives have an abundance of evidence. I am vehently
against the current role of the bankers, but...
The support for Hitler was both ideological and based on around 600 years of British
foreign policy - preventing any one power gaining hegemony in Europe.
Now, the bankers sought to exploit all of this and make a profit, immoral or otherwise, but
they didn't start it,and they couldn't have stopped it.
I am prepared to consider the idea that they now can exert such a high level of influence, and
are doing so, but this was not true in the past.
Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 12:35 PM
Washington has had a problem with groupthink for a long time, but now it's become obvious
to the entire world, not to mention the mythical Average American. Neither Millenials nor Boomers
were ever likely to fall for McCarthyism 2.0. Instead, they see the political leadership for what
it is -- a senile elite that has entirely lost its grip on reality. This is common in dying
empires; in fact it's the fundamental reason why empires collapse.
Yes, running through all your resources, hollowing out your military, and destroying
international goodwill aren't exactly the way to Win Friends And Influence People. But they
happen, because the 1% at the top of the totem pole become so divorced from what life is like for
the other 99%, that they lose the ability to make intelligent or rational decisions.
It's like an oil tanker trying to thread its way through a gap in a reef -- with good steering
and a willing crew, it can be done. But if the captain's passed out drunk and the Exec is high on
meth, with half the crew already taking off in the lifeboats against orders . . . it takes a
miracle to avoid the rocks.
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio
War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at
The eXiled
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying
freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because
we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the
last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or
MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the
media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life.
That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using
"terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the
the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy
run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan
years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote
about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being
Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview
between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness-
a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The
Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule
the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of
false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know
who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical
of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working
for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power
. . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether
they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin
agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense
as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr.
de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation
is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were
to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything
must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own
recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks,
to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or
his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running
against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they
didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this
- donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language
are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens,
Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers
over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line
about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop"
this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what
MJ's partner writes now:
RUSSIAN EXPANSION
Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual
expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different
rules. Or maybe no rules at all.
The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton
supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with
neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton.
The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and
Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point
was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they
knew it or not.
* * *
What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this
current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting
campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced
by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed
into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression,
harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if
history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.
Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now
how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks
when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked
off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures
to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s -
defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein
& Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.
As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee
to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.
Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive
media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the
next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of
this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator,
published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline
read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support
the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism
may be interested in you.
It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security
Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election
cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.
By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother
Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer
accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam
Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:
To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee
investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not
want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.
So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks
- yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists"
while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same
warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.
* * *
Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into
Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened
from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most
dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two
were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.
To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding
federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs.
A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress
was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything
- Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.
Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting
women's right to abortion.
Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because
John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most
famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken
prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he
was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled
him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse
code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".
In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who
was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on
the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because
not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically
obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat
to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse
than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant
the rest of us to hate Russians too.
Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault
of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America
that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica
of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters
with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis!
Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like
some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's
America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily
fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as,
well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last
November.
Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries'
minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and
a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then,
as now.
"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their
sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton
What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex.
It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans.
It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary
political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.
Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his
best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.
Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton
and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans
had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's
values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!
And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.
A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political
'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s,
he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's
troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."
Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the
sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts,
the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian
prostitutes in our current panic. . . .
To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol
Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great
service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office
in 1986.
Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis
- now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the
Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its
core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally
appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.
Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of
the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors.
I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof
of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.
These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam
Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you
can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them
together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically
opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually
quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and
feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most
plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned
into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative,
view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and
panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia
that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale.
The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them
a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening
The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution.
Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin
"active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew
it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for
vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans.
Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against
Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone
opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to
refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations
into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".
I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation"
history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.
After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history),
Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming
out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried
to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation"
is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged
in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda,
disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.
Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps
and spooks who fed Denton's committee.
I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger
threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has
done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then
there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any
way, shape or form.
This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US
can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the
1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-(
And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother
hiding it anymore.
@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions
of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister,
so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)
American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested
in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common
good of the Syrians today.
Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always
'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world,
how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever
we can and enrich the 1%.
Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they
cash in on the chant du jour.
Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent
neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves
not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking
like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively
reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.
It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia
with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic
material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.
Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could
get their hands on them [
Operation Paperclip
] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with
stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they
say
American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support
of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another
bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing
to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad
guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all
the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the
war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet
Union.
As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites
of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what
hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political
inclinations, I never paid it any attention.
A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream.
Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign,
their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed
last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now
with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their
personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material
to make any McCarthyite proud.*
[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled
him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the
magazine he co-founded?]
Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it
was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :
"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily
propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a
policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.
It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies
do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy
by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression
rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies,
the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.
They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors,
and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political
power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.
Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the
most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying
to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the
murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other
nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint
among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This
is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.
Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to
wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it
should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted
to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but
an excuse for warmongering since 1989.
Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The
Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the
Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."
I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering
with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient
stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic
and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a
weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by
mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious
ipso facto .
Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy
and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply
felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole
sex and reproductive moral prism.
Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of
the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and
spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.
The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They
seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore.
Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with
the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants
of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for
the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's
Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.
Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent
anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia
with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at
all times though!
This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least
come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African
dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own
a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.
Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative.
And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now
finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right
is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little
over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie
was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency
that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being
on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been
put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they
did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing.
The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie
terrorist tactics for decades.
file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer
inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.
@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of
us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.
Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.
Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of
all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon
us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack
of public awareness of it.
land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all.
Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the
illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with
the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare
world.
"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately
judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished
information."
Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that
our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to
hear.
George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference
Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped
Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100
million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found
Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation
in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised
they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far?
He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms
sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.
"... Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked." ..."
"... But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said. ..."
"... Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. ..."
"... He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in." ..."
"... "We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that." ..."
"... If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'" ..."
UNITED NATIONS (AP) ! Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with
the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful"
actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."
Sergey Lavrov told a news conference there has been a lengthy campaign claiming Russia
interfered in the U.S. election to ensure victory for President Donald Trump ! "but we do not
see any facts."
When he asked U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson how Russia could confirm his words that
Moscow interfered in the American election process, Lavrov said Tillerson replied: "I cannot
show you anything because this is confidential information.'"
Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United
States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved
in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not
a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked."
Lavrov recalled World War II when the United States and Russia fought as allies against Nazi
Germany.
But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's
administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a
Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications,"
he said.
Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a
result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and
international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he
said. The U.S. and Russian militaries maintain contact to prevent accidents or
confrontations between their forces fighting in Syria, but Lavrov said "in order to eliminate
terrorists we need not only de-confliction, we need coordination."
He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and
Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S.
military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who
find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop
beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They
did it, and that's the reality we live in."
He was asked about Trump's combative speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday in which the
American president threatened "to totally destroy North Korea" if the U.S. is forced to defend
itself or its allies and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un responded calling Trump "deranged" and
saying he will "pay dearly" for his threats.
Calling the exchange of threats "quite bad," Lavrov said "it is unacceptable to simply sit
back and to look at the nuclear and military gambles of North Korea, but it is also
unacceptable to start war on the peninsula."
"We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump
administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at
mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such
a request "he would try to fulfill that."
The Russian minister said he had no new initiatives to bring the two sides together,
explaining that he believes "the potential" for the Russian-Chinese freeze-for-freeze proposal
"is not yet exhausted." It would halt North Korean nuclear and missile tests in exchange for
the U.S. and South Korea stopping their joint military exercises, but the Trump administration
has rejected it.
Lavrov was asked whether he saw a link between the crisis in North Korea and Trump's threat
to pull out of the 2015 agreement to cap Iran's nuclear program. He stressed that all other
parties to the deal, including Russia, support the agreement and don't want it reopened. "Right
now, North Korea is being told, renounce nuclear weapons and we will lift the sanctions,"
Lavrov said.
If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I
need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'"
Garrett 's book
The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic
all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American
way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary
between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of
the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system
of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the
"Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And
the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians
feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for
similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish
Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.
-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible
or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another
is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation
exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil,
financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could
possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully
on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World
War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation
became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:
The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that
an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage.
The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates
power in various ways. They include:
By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never
considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement
in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his
authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process
presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out.
A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it
becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that
will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act
upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s]
itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American
role upon the world stage."
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire --
imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."
Satellite nations
"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is
the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how]
could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people
who act as an outer guard."
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial
and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to
satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We
must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security
and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of
economic and technical assistance."
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic
support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere
of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those
policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire
has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear.
Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's
savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties,
police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each
other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something
excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest;
vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of
power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that
the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going
on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the
free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."
Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always
stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire
is best opposed.
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests
may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?
..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with
the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda,
and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the
Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was
not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the
South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a
serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American
hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian
regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense
of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen.
Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting
a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.
It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre"
rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically,
we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations
to war.
Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some
Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign
although some of the ads ran after the election.
Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia.
The Washington Post
reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon
Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.
Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located
470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.
Here is how the Times
described
those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by
a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)
Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia
and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.
"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly
vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post
reported
Facebook Complies
So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified
more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!
In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief
executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet
states."
So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.
But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose
interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently
than Russia?
After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been
pulling the U.S. government
into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the
region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.
And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have
done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?
Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous
war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed
by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal
document entitled "
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply
replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.
However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President
George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more
"regime changes" in Syria and Iran.
A Wrench in the Plans
Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with
Israel's new regional ally,
Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren
explained , the goal was to shatter
the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.
How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained.
But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of
letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry
fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.
Israel's influence
over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference
of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and
announced that he was not there
to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.
And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress
at which Republicans and
Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the
record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)
Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby"
brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.
However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed
in the early 1980s in taking out
Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's
have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics
is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?
If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign
money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy
theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.
So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case
of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had
virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all
the evidence-lite accusations
about Russian "meddling."
The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and
play endless footsy with the neocons
; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified
information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into
the Libyan fiasco nor
suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with
her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from
the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did
the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a
laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days
before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians
didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.
But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country
to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a
sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic
means to a political end.
As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. ..."
"... We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ..."
"... Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies. ..."
"... Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities: ..."
"... "Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not. ..."
"... The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line . ..."
"... People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off ..."
"... The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation . ..."
"... Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality . ..."
"... I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing . ..."
"... Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region .. ..."
"... Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils . ..."
"... In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements . ..."
"... While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent . ..."
"... And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work . ..."
"... The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children . ..."
"... It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/ ..."
"... Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right. ..."
"... Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama. ..."
"... MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"Every rouble spent in the social sphere should 'generate justice.' An equitable social and
economic system is the main requirement for ensuring our sustained development during these years."
– Russian President Vladimir Putin
Is Vladimir Putin really the "KGB thug" the US media makes him out to be?
Take a look at this except from a book review in the New York Times and see what you think.
"A decade ago it was possible to imagine two inner Putins wrestling for his soul: the K.G.B.
thug versus the modernizer. Sadly, events since then suggest that the inflexible misanthrope we
see is the only Putin we get
Even the most casual Putin-watcher has marveled at his narcissism, manifested in his odd habit
of inviting cameras to record him bare-chested on horseback, swimming the butterfly stroke in
a Siberian river, scuba diving and collecting skin samples from whales, among other stunts. Gessen
traces his self-absorption back to his youth.
Putin's childhood ambition was to be a spy in the K.G.B., but Gessen reveals that his actual
experience was more Walter Mitty than James Bond. He was basically a paper-pusher, collecting
press clippings in Dresden while the East German Stasi did the real dirty work of recruiting informers
and policing dissent .Putin soon hitched himself to the first of a series of flawed, small-d democrats,
who would propel him to power." ("Reclaiming the Kremlin", Bill Keller, New York Times)
Read enough?
Okay, so according to the Times, Putin is an ass-kissing, paper-pushing, self-adsorbed, autocratic
thug who has dreams of greatness. Did we miss something? Oh yeah, he's also a misanthropic slacker
who let's everyone else do the heavy lifting.
Is that what they call objective journalism at the NYT? Its worth noting that this laughable bit
of propaganda was written by the Times editor himself, Bill Keller! Can you believe it? I mean, wouldn't
you think that the editor of the nation's number 1 newspaper would make some effort to hide his bias?
But, no, when it comes to serving the folks in power, Keller is just as willing to run his credibility
through the mud as the next guy. And, so he has, but what does that tell us about Putin?
It tells us that Putin is despised by powerful members of the US policy establishment. That's
what it tells us. After all, it's their views that are reflected in the mainstream media via propagandists
like Keller.
But, why? Putin is not a fiery leftist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. He's a right-of-center
nationalist who's not particularly ideological, confrontational, or unreasonable. so, what's the
problem? Besides, Putin has bent over backwards to accommodate the US on everything from nuclear
disarmament to the War on Terror. So why the hostility?
It's because Putin wants to be a partner on global issues, particularly security issues. But the
US doesn't want partners; it wants lackeys and puppets who will follow orders. And that's why the
NY Times and the others in the moron media are ganging up on him, because–in Washington's eyes–if
your not a lackey, your the enemy. It's that simple.
If you want to know why Russian-US relations have steadily deteriorated, you might want to read
this excerpt from an article by Pat Buchanan who asks "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"
"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow
felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only
did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the
whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme
afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia
to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the
liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now
learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they
directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and
tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed
by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the
former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.
U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus.
Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification,
as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on
to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her
territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the
Orthodox states of the Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"
There it is in a nutshell. The world's biggest troublemaker (guess who?) has broken its promises,
surrounded Russia with military bases, put NGOs on the ground to incite revolution in all the former
Soviet states (and Russia), and now wants to situate nuclear missile sites a few hundred miles from
Moscow. This is how Washington strengthens ties with its former adversaries, by poking a thumb in
their eye at every opportunity.
The Obama administration has assured Putin that its anti-ballistic missile defense system, which
will be deployed in former Warsaw pact countries in E Europe, is strictly defensive and will only
be aimed at Iran. But it isn't true. In fact, the system will be aimed at Russia and poses a direct
threat to Russian national security. Everyone knows this, even though the media continues to soft-peddle
the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile
defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".
Sure, what's a few nuclear weapons among friends?
Naturally, Putin has seen through this ruse and protested. Here's what he at a press conference
6 years ago:
"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire
nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.
"For the first time in history there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European
continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ..Of course, we
have to respond to that."
Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America's
existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this are obvious.
The US (under Bush and Obama) wants to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle,
calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". That's what missile defense
is all about.
In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:
"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely,
the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first
strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."
By "compellence" Boyle means that first strike capability will allow the US to force Moscow to
meet its demands or face certain annihilation.
So what should Putin do? Should he sit back on his haunches and wait for the US to come to its
senses or threaten to remove the new installations by force? The issue remains unresolved.
As for the US NGOs, it's long been known that they're up to no good, and that they function as
the civilian component of a larger military strategy to rule the world. There was an interesting
piece by Paul Craig Roberts in
CounterPunch
on Thursday which fleshes out the activities of these groups and their real purpose. Here's an excerpt
from the article:
"The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed
by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts
in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically
largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington's
aggression ..
Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents .. The Itar-Tass News
Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from
abroad and engaged in political activity .
The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind "human rights" and says
it works to "open Russia." What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian "political
opposition" means by "open Russia" is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to
open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign
policies determined by Washington."
That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Of course, any action taken by Putin to impede the the
activities of foreign spies (and agents for global capital) is denounced in the media as an attack
on civil liberties and democracy.
Talk about hypocrisy? Do we really need to hear the world's biggest civil rights abuser scold
Russia for defending itself from foreign invasion? When was the last time Putin bombed a wedding
party in Pakistan or blew up one of its own citizens in a drone attack or incarcerated and tortured
mere "suspects" without charging them with a crime? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
Did you know that the Bush administration thought they could co-opt Putin and bring him into the
imperial fold like America's other puppets around the world?
It's true. Bush actually liked Putin and tried to get him to fall in line. But then something
happened at a Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007, where all the top brass in
the administration and the far-right think tanks realized that Putin couldn't be co-opted; that he
was ferociously nationalistic and would not do their bidding. So the entire strategy was scrapped
and the demonisation began. Here's a clip from the speech that Putin gave in Munich that turned things
around. It's a rather long because I wanted you to get a sense of the man, his sincerity, his earnestness,
and his genuine desire for fundamental change in US-Russian relations:
"Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge
strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the
international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us
with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double
standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to
world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the
day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one
centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is
pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because
it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is
the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason
those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's
world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely
in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What
is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can
be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today's world – and we just started to discuss this –
is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of
a unipolar world.
And what have the results been?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they
have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars
as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these
conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in
international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of
these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law.
And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's
legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped
its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational
policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according
to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I
want to emphasise this ! no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is
like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have
appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about
the architecture of global security." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, Conference on Security
Policy in Munich in February 2007)
Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless
behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model
which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making"
is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts."
The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which
is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies.
Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down,
austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at
the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty,
eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of
working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities:
"Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions.
It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid
reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person
on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured
by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not.
The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives
below the official poverty line .
People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied
with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still
quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas
are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off
The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency
of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve
the situation .
Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the
backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of
society and serve as the pillar of public morality .
I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent
pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough
on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition
our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base
of these sectors will come to nothing .
Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments
– up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors
and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the
case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers
– 200% of the average pay across the region ..
Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation
of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example,
in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils .
In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able
and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised
educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements .
While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups
is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States
but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation
is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can
fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy
more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure
a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country
where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent .
And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income
or are too young to work .
The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children
.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of
poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible.
Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said
that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided
to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here:
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/
Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social
mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms"
(that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening
unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education"
or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who
cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is
more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for
them. Right.
Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone
proves that he'd make a better president than Obama.
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most
of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy
vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out
to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
@Chief SeattleSo, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become
"fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid
mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ,"
without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple
reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not
quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time
conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy
theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about
what are obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you
do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have
taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
Not least of which is the remarkable inactivity of the FBI: for example "The FBI has never
questioned Assange [he
confirms that] or Murray" and neither has it ever looked at the DNC servers.
Nonetheless, every time you think the hysteria has gone as far as it can, it goes a bit
farther: Morgan Freeland joins the
circus.
"... Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse. ..."
"... "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" ..."
"... Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill? ..."
"... As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia? ..."
"... Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this? ..."
There are members of Congress who don't want anyone on TV saying America's foreign policy is a
disaster and it costs a fortune, Daniel McAdams, executive director, Ron Paul Institute, told
RT.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2018, which
passed the US Senate earlier this week, carries some added provisions that have little in
common with the military.
Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian
broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts,
leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse.
The plan is buried inside a tiny amendment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The part about Russia is summarized in just a few lines, between details on funding of the US
military.
Amendment
No 1096 , which aims to "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being
required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian
Federation" .
RT: Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill?
Daniel McAdams: There is an obsession on Capitol Hill and within the mainstream media with
RT because RT is effective and RT is watched. But also, and this is very important because RT
carries perspectives that are not available in the mainstream media. Commentators on RT that I
know would say the same thing that they say on RT if they were invited by any of the mainstream
media, but they won't. The matter of fact is that John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the people who
were behind this amendment, the Atlantic Council and the others are trying to silence RT. They
are the totalitarians, they are the enemies of free speech; they're the enemies of the First Amendment;
they don't want anyone coming on television saying that America's foreign policy is a disaster;
it is broken; it is making us more vulnerable to attack, and it's costing a fortune. It cannot
stand competition in the area of ideas.
RT: As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only
Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just
solely be on Russia?
DM: The attention should be on none of these stations. It should be viewer beware. If you're
watching RT and you know that it is funded, or its funding comes from the Russian government,
you take that into consideration just as any intelligent person would do. When I watch France
24, when I watch the BBC, I know that that takes the perspectives of the British government into
consideration, because it is funded by that.
This is a free market of ideas; this is what this is all about. But the people on Capitol Hill
are again totalitarians – they don't want a free market in ideas. They want to control the debate.
They don't want Americans to wake up and see that the foreign policy that they are pushing is
resulting in a charred Earth and a disaster that is coming home to roost.
RT: Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill
to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this?
DM: This is how it's done, absolutely. I have read a million defense spending bills in my 15
years on the Hill. This is called planting a seed – you plant this kernel, and it starts to grow.
If someone objects, later on, you can say – this is already passed in the defense bill; you've
already voted on this; this is already part of the law; this is just suggesting, clarifying, or
going further. This is how they do things: you bury it in a huge bill like this; you plant a seed
and you watch it grow.
I don't know the exact language in the bill; I am sure Russia is not only the flavor of the
month, it is the flavor of the year. There is the 'Investigate Russia'
committee , where a bunch of Hollywood liberals got together with a bunch of neocons and are
finding reds under our beds. There is a hysteria going on in America. I still would like to believe
that the average American thinks it's absolutely nuts; I hope it stays that way. Hopefully, this
will blow over at some point, and not blow up .
Hollywood was once on the receiving end of McCarthyism in the 50s, and now it looks like they
want to dish out McCarthyism on everyone else.
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by
extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump
regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy
agendas.
In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda
and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international
realities.
We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless
degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.
The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath
The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic
decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of
unprecedented military-political power.
The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened
the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration.
As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority.
The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government
and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations
of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered
in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness.The invasion
of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing
war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct
control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US
military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the
major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton
engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power
in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia).
The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while
dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions
against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.
The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international
order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined
as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic
sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade
agreements in Asia excluding China.
The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars.
The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise
the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building
and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he
would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if
he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered
global order.
Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation
with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy,
darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.
The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president,
but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's
global order.
Trump Under Obama's International Order
After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations
and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed
to reverse Obama's 'international order'.
Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial
to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term
commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and
other Obama-designated endless war zones.
Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas
markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities.
Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control
of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and
their programs.
Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one
proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.
A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed
' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.
The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities
as President.
General Mattis: The Militarization of America
General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including
the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.
The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing
the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.
General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama
administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.
The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic
sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire.
The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented
seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and
consular staff.
These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration
under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear
power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.
What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part
of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria
(which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton)
and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.
The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea,
which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military
megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential'
threat to the US mainland.
Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed.
Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea.
Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security
Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as
Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take
Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)
Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and
bellicose provocation against Iran.
When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and
Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements'
.
Militarization: An Evaluation
Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his
own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog'
Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and
undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator
Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him
was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of
Obama holdovers!
The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering
Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog'
Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.
While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the
attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has
enraged his own Party's leaders.
In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military
junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least
in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against
North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range
ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea.
Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq)
of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.
Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands
of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.
At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export
business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and
his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump,
may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US
military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.
The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but
it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners'
in the Trump regime.
The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger
of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.
The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the
ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially
succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations
in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over
the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats
against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade
ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.
Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate
Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized
after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.
Conclusion
The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump
Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.
Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has
tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden,
to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose
headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.
But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands
of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury
and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout
the South China Sea.
Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists
hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion.
The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any
election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly
courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving
lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's
next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for
whatever Party.
The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:
First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries
who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant
economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified
economies.
Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince
opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries
can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that
can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create
millions of refugees.
High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory
and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!
In sum:
Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal
thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing
its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed
forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.
Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their
stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual
respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating
past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.
American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to
many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or
punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish
the opposite of the stated intention.
They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China
and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering
beacon that once shone brighter.
Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent,
exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).
Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable.
The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters
even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.
How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes:
if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks
down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward.
Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...
It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures
to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a
place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and
impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries
can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .
Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to
campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power
structure will do same to military .
Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about
Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow
up to pull the strings of the President.
The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is
a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears
an essay bearing the title
"Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary
, penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert
C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving
Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment.
Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.
"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars
employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies
in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During
the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They
are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.
The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride
as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and
Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension.
"Academic" becomes a synonym for naïve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.
To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer,
Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic
realism.
Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat
not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order.
"Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle
the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic
realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability
and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous
world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.
Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot,
merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they
thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists
decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.
For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold
War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with
their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic
realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into
the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they
advocate unvarnished recklessness.
Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In
Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed,
they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying
into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."
This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and
hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much
clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.
Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang
of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of
any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet
is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our
president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.
In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite
smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.
To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond:
Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at
the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter
of general interest?
In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting
their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine
realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially
since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of
the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain
those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to
deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives
and arrangements.
Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their
own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer
their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."
The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the
seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires
not throwing away what has worked in the past."
Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant
to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic)
realism?
On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the
Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before
the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam,
for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United
States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant.
Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff
happens!
Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism
in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict
as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account
are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist
thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and
containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were
the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according
to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."
Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy
that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course,
the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world
that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by
realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory,
and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.
"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions."
They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption:
That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome
predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United
States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.
Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.
Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
I had emailed the following comment to a friend just a few hours ago. It seems germane, so
I'm taking the liberty of just pasting it here, in the context of the Iran policy discussion
:
!
As you know I had high hopes of Trump, based mostly on my wishful thinking about his
dog-whistles. Now I am mostly inclined to view him in terms appropriate to the sell-out to
the Judaic world order detailed by Petras in his recent article on Who Rules America.
The main serious person I know of who continues to harbour hopes about Trump's hidden
agenda is Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth.
I had shared with you my opinion that the anti-Iran bluster was just that, given that
Russia is Iran's strategic partner. But lately I concluded that it was probably just
dangerous Judaic policy. A recent editorial essay in Rothschild's Economist has given me
pause. The article strongly opposes taking on the nuclear pact with Iran. So what are the
mega-Jews concerned about? Maybe Trump intends to lever Iran into nuclear status. Their
leadership says that's what will happen. Trump, like Bannon with his absurd affirmations of
allegiance to Judeo-Christian civilisation, might be loving the Jews to death. A nuclear
armed Iran might very well be what humanity needs. And America as well. Just a thought.
I know this will not convince you. That's okay. It's just a possibility. But keep it
tucked away in a recess of your head for future reference.
!
If Iran gives every indication of proceeding with nuclear arming, once the US leaves it no
alternative, it would require a nuclear umbrella until such time as it could defend itself.
That might come from Russian or Chinese nukes under the rubric of SCO. Like American nukes in
Turkey and Germany, these could be put at the disposal of the Iranis without violating the
Non-Proliferarion Treaty, or at least no more than the American nukes under foreign control
do.
"... Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about). ..."
@WJ
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump
been a warmonger?
I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed
that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head
chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan
policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only
be 15000 there anyway.
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has
Trump been a warmonger?
You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump
administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. (
one ,
two ,
three , four ,
five ).
Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian
Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during
his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the
9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite
pleased with his progress, as they should be.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His
Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now
is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved
they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and
cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks
mentioned above was about).
After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic
Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab
fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically,
a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares
or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title=""
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've
also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.
I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them
when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even
then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which
could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In
fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the
city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had
good
relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to
American special forces.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army
for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic"
gesture.
Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the
Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.
And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act,
Trump might be thinking about
ending the Iran deal in October.
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017
Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the
sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to
humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate"
as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy
Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for
potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and
evil.
In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew
Higgins wrote
– referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it
has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of
would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a
distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined
military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."
This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger
narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even
inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War
Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."
Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but
you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance,
U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia,
Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia
and Iran.
In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual
countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that
war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious
stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.
In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to
intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war
rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious
targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade
some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual
U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)
Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's
one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.
Yellow Journalism
But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister
than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice
of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and
Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis
in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say
marked the beginning of America's global empire.
Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what
could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its
President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's
Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to
that.
At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism.
Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a
case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually
happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a
violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been
demonized in the Western media.
Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police,
Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening
violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy
President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.
Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or
"midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman
was
overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize"
and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it:
"Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian
imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the
near abroad but within Russia itself."
The Putsch
So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of
seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed
both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media
blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally
in Kiev.
Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise
--
guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an
election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.
At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb.
22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the
agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department
quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."
However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's
electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times'
narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there
as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of
Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an
amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.
The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave
the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth
Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek
reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls
"annexation."
The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there
is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin
stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's
WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."
But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because
it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some
progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's
revulsion over Donald Trump's election.
Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election
as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards
of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.
The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the
"resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's
Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.
For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed
Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris
Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist
who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother
Russia.
The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin
than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and
political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the
neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and
honest journalism.
The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and
Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death
Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING
telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American
press. "Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/
Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an
absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel
overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew
the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim
"citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are
NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under
constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share
America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for
all.
How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public
for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet,
and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook
and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a
'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.
JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we
were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was
reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I
was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant
effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that
no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to
hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this,
way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line
and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.
CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend
our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians
rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you,
disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the
MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to
educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have
been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them
in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.
Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the
planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb
and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It
has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish
Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American
voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash.
Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But
maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to
change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since
birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium
of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
school.
I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was
sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated
while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place
hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've
been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.
Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very
valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes
search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same
My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I
imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation
of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an
NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full
season I followed was the 2013-14 season.
It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys
stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized
these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread
hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came
apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.
Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the
way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us
to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock
that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope)
and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US
rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with
the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a
game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and
foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my
life.
It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies
lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the
cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother
f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and
destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to
some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.
Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies
out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done
over several decades.
I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to
think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive
Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as
VP, and then you know the rest of the story.
Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw,
after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who
voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So
yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China
in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by
his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the
country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance,
the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.
Only this time its
no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the
non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose
if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of
self-survival.
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."
You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current
affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating
different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for
themselves.
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it
is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The
worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping
masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits
them.
"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."
Robinson Jeffers
HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and
the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am
Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
******************************
And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?
******************************
I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy,
my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so
passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are
cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no
children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity
seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.
I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets'
links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is
reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of
Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing
effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service
to humanity.
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm
After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.
Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am
I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch,
capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of
the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing
for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.
Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been
for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by
professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this
weird and dangerous bias?
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Have you looked into who owns the NYT?
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am
Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all
their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous
pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am
The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great
Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit,
relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the
steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets,
to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out
between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked
to build.
THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks
cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel
community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also
positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and
see their plight).
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am
Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive,
particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically
listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles
or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true
hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over
generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our
great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel
employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The
Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.
Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"
Several points:
The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their
industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist
project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance
--
the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the
eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the
thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since
the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of
that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and
lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm
The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own
conclusions.
Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name
Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The
Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the
respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the
ratlines to travel.
I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means
to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these
matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for
Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be
the way Trump is pulled down.
Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?
Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article
from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to
rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred
times. Yawn
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am
After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election"
claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a
response.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
No one is required to read anything on CN.
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together
and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the
topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.
I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said.
After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to
the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking
heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not
yawning.
Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm
That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?
And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well
bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am
"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.
Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm
I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin
stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a
judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the
Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just
makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm
They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under
God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own
moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking
for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for
months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat
campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this
hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's
de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.
David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm
I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by
the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put
together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories,
mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never
repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of
the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country,
but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.
The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their
editorial policy reflects this.
David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even
watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am
Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able
to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm
There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm
Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on
verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories
popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our
crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.
We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen
Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons
of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.
One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas
overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?
Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into
supposing they have value beyond their labour?
AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm
> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens
into supposing they have value beyond their labour?
It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who
mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort,
they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted
totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am
Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to
his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all
together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud
of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's
small domain.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am
MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.
Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The
Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G
That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired
into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the
same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal
with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.
This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in
2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA
We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference
between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but
the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda.
Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are
willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy
to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the
bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up. https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html
Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it
Moderation?)
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm
If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides
a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful
consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But
then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards
groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a
conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach
individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.
Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm
So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on
that?
The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is
to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of
the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public
toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist
to control such a large part of their great republic ?
Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am
Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible
angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a
winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am
Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve
them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at
China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers.
This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict
in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of
their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us,
and the utter destruction of the US.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
Our political leaders have betrayed us.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm
Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.
Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were
destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make
peace?
Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it
better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war,
hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest
racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to
win.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am
We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.
Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live
in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go
down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the
states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I
see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately,
its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing
well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new
bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in
returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to
have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent
commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.
ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am
YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying
what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e.
the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a
bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're
reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe
others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging
of the public to a suicidal conflagration.
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am
The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that
their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual
everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has
credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean
there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they
are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the
reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?
Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no
bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go
our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only
truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be
reported.
People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound
bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy.
Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who
sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief
that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a
rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie
isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large
number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news
agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it
this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the
pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job
security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist
head' security, if you know what I mean.
To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK
assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to
decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose
this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to
a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has
to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction
to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words,
the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just
might find it. Good luck.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am
The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda
on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is
really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are
we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm
I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but
then that would make me a troll.
All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on
different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news
from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's
impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without
an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place,
where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what
is true, and what isn't.
Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel
Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what
you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a
match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and
there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on,
but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?
Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark
of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this
conviction has reversed itself.
Thanks mike for the reply. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am
Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false
pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting
powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out."
Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for.
I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am
You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late
Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of
eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A
block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election
Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they
would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the
tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth,
and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles
tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as
many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom
said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and
that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk
vote'.
So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself
don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet
Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and
honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.
Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee
appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.
For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked
reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the
candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential
picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.
My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy
away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did
at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep
up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.
Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to
give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell
from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe
Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm
Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water
always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize
they are much more than 'just' water:)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's
'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five
years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK
'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall
to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real
chutzpah.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am
You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon
their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it
necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of
reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to
a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but
never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether
for the good or the bad.
But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what
might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga
need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been
something good for me to follow through on.
We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our
great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied
on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what
they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the
people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too
continue.
Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's
Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few
things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than
what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.
Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am
Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to
extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language
always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is
not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and
their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of
Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard
encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home,
but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick
talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only
two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will
to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.
Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there,
only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell
is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.
Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Very well said, Herman. Very true.
Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am
I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag,
"The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets
all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it
"fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic
effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe
to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and
propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.
To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate
word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that
now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign
agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for
several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I
see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this
excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia
during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were
probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am
You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his
details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article
of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as
a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean
no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just
rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake
news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the
MSM.
Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the
pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona
fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call
writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a
whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness
rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of
these wordsmiths.
BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get
that straight.
Nice comment Patricia. Joe
hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith
miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am
You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the
honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection
our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't
eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life
goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's
past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its
best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their
workless society.
One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and
dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's
the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.
I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's
bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable
of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to
that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off
future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but
I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going
down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On
the Hill'.
Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone
and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe
A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson
Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to
keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there,
and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really
know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news
would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some
well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the
public narrative .but there go I.
Good to see you Bob. Joe
Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and
malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows
higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode,
Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act,
weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to
be true and react and respond accordingly.
"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical
opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject
lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his
groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically
clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)
My sentiments exactly.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am
What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by
Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those
who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about
that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation?
Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia,
Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are
your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance,
some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am
You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not
dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the
evidence of "that bloody Putin."
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted
by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal
mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition
"partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0
coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues,
including ways to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're
"verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to
embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency"
Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look
Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification"
charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the
streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded
"First Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video
to "strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful
marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally
driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian,
and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat /
Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and
Twitter campaigns.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for
2017 Amerika.
Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed
to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF)
founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives
(DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in
news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man"
now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins'
role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think
tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of
disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their
"online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army,
US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips,
and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at
least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland,
Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of
New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security),
Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and
was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster
anti-Russian propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And
none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been
pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use
social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video
presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by
government sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a
set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine)
and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian
government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western
intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his
service to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international
alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped
inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of
data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed
extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia,
uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the
involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with
the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source
information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to
mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a
Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author
of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and
Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian
political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the
Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the
Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had
been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle
East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake
"citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.
Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am
Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.
jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm
The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a
deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average
consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.
First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved,
and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of
an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.
Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what
would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO),
and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet,
in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the
event.
Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed
Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European
institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the
Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and
adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from
Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008
"Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at
5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.
Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009
that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean
naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the
United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the
Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis
requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the
Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.
The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military
officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be
trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin
has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially
bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis
on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is
exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.
Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am
Well said.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before
Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh,
so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like
that.
What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no
other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow,
or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in
Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To
the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard
jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.
Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what
does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe
rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres.
Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after
Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and
policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him
and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which
followed.
MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm
It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation
is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family
and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can
provide.
It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension
or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological
loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.
This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to
do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the
great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago.
The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.
A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it,
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move
ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the
biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm
What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other
Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our
news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then
whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up
to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable
mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?
What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in
place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma
will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of
complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive
leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said
events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.
MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one
priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it.
Joe
Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint
Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in
government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A
treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This
would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough
investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make
Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in
the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense
to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these
investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess
it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm
The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy
about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government
doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence,
peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until
the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes
and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands
pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a
temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then
maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it
impossible to cover up everything.
And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government
realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has
been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and
what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev
government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you
what I see from here)
It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each
other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and
there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but
still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only
delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon
millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now
also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means
that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the
most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one
is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it
take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the
survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true
nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the
Saker)
Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin
with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody
around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever
crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are
obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas.
"Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged
flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and
able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews
also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400
thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent)
hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the
nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's
parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979
when their son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military
contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and
make it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of
bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and
research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully
reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing
evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and
engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for
you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New
York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song
and dance via their YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing
imagery in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses
satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of
Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under
the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States
Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital
Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of
Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy"
scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload
data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical
addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital
affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission
announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's
Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever
imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a
company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel
invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded.
The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter
accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is
heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine,
California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".
"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post
interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US
Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military
operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose
commander is also the head of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping,
shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US,
and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and
China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber
operations are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating
uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting
effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation"
antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the
Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU.
– well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --
Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am
Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as
well?
mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm
Is this a great country, or wot???
Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .
The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT
these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will
soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?
mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am
When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.
The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she
is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same
religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long
common history .
Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm
Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in
the American newspapers a lie.
Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am
Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats,
like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.
Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of
Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the
population.
The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which
American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is
not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.
Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?
By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits
in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their
absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
Notable quotes:
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for 9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington, they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001. ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three
co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used
to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest,
and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted
by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation,
in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old
effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the
CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert
program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small
groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program
...
When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence
and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the
exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an
equally larger scale.
*Note:
The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed
Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says
that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA
documents show that it was over $1 billion
per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started
in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.
Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM |
Permalink
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries
could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy
of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important
than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much
on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2
million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries
which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually
convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years? Selling out the entire
west and every Christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.
Is treason in the USA
a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."
A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training
them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping
is just too much of an attraction
"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"
The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped
in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians
are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution.
Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to
join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.
ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and
to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate
that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that
work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families
and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.
On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging
to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters
fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the
likes of McCain.
"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable
as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's
choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change
one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what
were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan
consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness
to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the
perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."
My own addition to the Brennan record:
Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for
9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington,
they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi
hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director
Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship
between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured
through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan
and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert.
In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities.
... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the
extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial
support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen
current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most
spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
...
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was
known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that
ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings
over years of abuses.
...
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut
off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through
a Cayman Islands bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom
kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence
E. Walsh, the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences
and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh
is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats
recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The
Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy
Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were
either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change
purposes (as in Libya and Syria):
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.
Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal
battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only
military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S.
seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.
This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting
to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes
assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and
UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed,
jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.
The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis
(c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines,
air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon
Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:
Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton
also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe,
Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone
damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).
Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq,
claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have
their own separate charge sheet.
Send the lot to Scheveningen
Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy
to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks
so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see:
'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year
sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us
who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof
of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially
the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic
law as well. Thanks b!
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward,
not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world,
but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks?
Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK
since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired
mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit.
Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread
the joy.
Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes
that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing
plan.
As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis
that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal
activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would
be brought to light.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes
for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's
probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.
That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head
into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.
At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some
of his damage.
Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly
or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth
suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing.
Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to
see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's
doofus back).
Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.
I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll
bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling
the apocalypse.
Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is
coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of
the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what
he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc.
I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling.
I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world
USA?
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria
has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies
would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.
John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington
for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would,"
McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition
in Syria.
"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided
them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send
them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare
as I understand it," McCain said.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland
to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador
to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief
architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of
the Syrian government.
Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates
and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist
extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written
off as an Assad apologist or worse.
Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting
moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington
was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates
he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange
with then-ex Ambassador Ford:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar'
of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex.
Meyssan, as an ex.:
In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that
the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory
importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade,
a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various
distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.
Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where
'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only
bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly
difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.
The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the
BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance
spun by the media, which works.
"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron
and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."
I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states)
- freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are
sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to
go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!
My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and
wealth, what religion does to a human?
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never...
Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice,
for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.
You can include ALL the POTUS's
and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."
6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless
people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will
create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly
to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger
the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect
them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way,
is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.
The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources
for the disorder on the internet.
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation)
that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird.
It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and
manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives.
/s
" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed
to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest
of the animal kingdom, ...."
Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living
to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly
so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere.
Thanks sharing you thought.
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional.
The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime
change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians
hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo
antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever
turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the
free world ,debunked.
Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute
and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the
next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.
Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they
had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar
ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their
regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the
Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion
of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come
out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading
and hacking the free world,debunked.
Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for
Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked
him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.
Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived
and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.
The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and
strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the
main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen
shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious
allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their
lives. Also Imran Awan
story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case?
They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the
2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about
Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "
The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian
Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking
theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final
analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is
to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections
or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who
took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took
the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check
out this clip from the report:
Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a
non-state player.
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that
you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American
people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia
ASSANGE: Yes.
HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult
life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal
safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's
right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would
deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the
Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia
and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't
involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks
with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near
American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust
at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field
against Bernie Sanders'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside
leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks
published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .
Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was
given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S.
presidential election.
'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they
must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC,
the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."
(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide
Clinton emails", Daily Mail)
Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible
witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish
whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already
done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year
now.
But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI
has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's
like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?
Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed
political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't
that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump?
How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator
called "The crime of the century"?
Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:
"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back
to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the
ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent
Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is
that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.
But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that
connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists.
Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence
that Russia hacked the DNC servers?
Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA
and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?
The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why
else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.
According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that
Russia was involved.
Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and
a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?
We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case.
That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers
so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from
the report:
"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC
server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.
The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.
3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.
4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only
picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."
( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)
Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes
beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to
you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're
blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door,
the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and
that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the
obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as
soon as I get the chance."
Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?
Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene,
and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that
in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential
treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked
by Russia?
The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within
their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can
trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious
doubt on their conclusions?
It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to
"stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are
all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
Here's another interesting clip from the report:
"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged
email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and
May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. –
That information has never been disclosed."
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)
Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing,
no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?
You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture,
not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr
and the goofy Russian lawyer?
Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations
of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit
financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!
What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia
to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year
of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.
A few words about the ICA Report
Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to
provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The
media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment
and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.
Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated
in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)
and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director
hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome.
Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention
was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global
rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical
disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well
as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney
because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'
Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors
openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof"
of anything?
Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best
when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by
the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually
actively manipulate the election process."
Like we said, it's all baloney.
Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations.
Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016.
The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance."
In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they
were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence
that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers
were hacked from Romania.)
The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:
"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not
by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed
locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside
job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last
Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)
Bingo.
Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces
and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This
is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal
the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.
In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations
stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:
I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate
Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High
Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become
liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my
defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and
blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with
bankruptcy.
Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning
that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs,
when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in
Britain for this very reason.
The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics
featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the
rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media
of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member
of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy
are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...
The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part
in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis
of America's finest.
Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is
highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations
and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So
this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."
People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary
Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a
place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person
only a few months earlier.
The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand
down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole
Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media
are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.
I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE
the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters
can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear
and greed.
Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media
keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who
consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration
of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.
Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more
fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.
They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and
more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's
Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting
on a table in front of their eyes.
Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it
and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole
cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund
the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government
officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening,
as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.
We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust,
and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside
as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.
View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.
It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based,
and it has been working.
All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity
to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit
my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their
grip.
I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched
a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed
to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which
is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.
In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists
and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly
either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front
of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries
to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into
the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that
is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it
was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said
Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and
how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The
clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able
to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to
vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission
to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."
Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY
machines etc.)
@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this
article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker
walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because
that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed
it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods
to Murray.
This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you
come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind
the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.
That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.
At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed
to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.
Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government
being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound
like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.
It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps
digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed
investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly,
both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and
ISIS.
We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic
immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its
industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the
ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international
shipping containers.
Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article
does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come
from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the
hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second,
it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of
proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden
of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the
American
public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue
now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv?
But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have
given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares
it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.
I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is,
but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich
(?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's
skivvies.
@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell
it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth
Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the
DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's
not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof"
only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof
submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you
know.
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.
In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word
'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system,
simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your
man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution
has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's
semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead,
you know.
He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions
Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and
rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's
murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's
hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to
Wikileaks whatsoever.
And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now
facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations
against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but
then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray
for cooperating with Wikileaks.
Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from
the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial
material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest
online controversy he helped stoke.
Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms
confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of
his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...] But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration"
and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.
"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."
He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.
"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because
I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream
rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.
"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,"
Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."
People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many
months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity
from "brain dead" Trump supporters.
@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew,
being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.
Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand
him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even
posthumous to be effective.
Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim
Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that
because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate
the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole
story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington
gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.
We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary
Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then,
instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn
the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence,
squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence
actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?
Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt
the organization that's betrayed him.
As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to
me a pile of horse dung.
Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising
the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?
This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other
deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of
this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw
any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically
insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies,
that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!
@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of
proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set
aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution
although your use of the wòrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).
Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained
of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing
which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible
avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed
an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really
complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically)
rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend
properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.
Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available
to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if
the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.
Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide
evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.
Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted
real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or
has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?
I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural
innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified
.. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!
Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site
so the First Amendment should look after us.
The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found
by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the
novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships?
What facts?
If Critics such as neocon
Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By
Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons
leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous
Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran
and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective
with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully
tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this
noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless
manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United
States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his
or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between
Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state.
Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but
Tillerson is the worst of the lot.
Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever
since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure.
It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department
will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that
replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of
the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority.
The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain
for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.
So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation,
I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump
would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.
Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump
was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful
that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but
that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern
times.
Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely
to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's
administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description
be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump
would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with
military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.
Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade
him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't
going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should
assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson
has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge
that his successor could still be even worse.
Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation
by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the
corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out
some don't.
Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted.
Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran
all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their
advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of
the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office
a new diplomat will have to wait.
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general
on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would
be at least one too many in this Cabinet."
And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter
of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society,
these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success,
or even sound judgment.
It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent
Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency
issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens.
Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan,
one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.
So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd
leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of
the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume
his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice
for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General
& Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is
needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler
comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more
than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums
for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary
of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear
God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)
However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes
taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the
Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the
last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons)
lefy in Trump's Administration.
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before:
George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I
can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that
there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He
seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer
Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness
in Libya.
As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated
that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring
initiative:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump
might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign,
who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to
Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
"... Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done. Some related matters caught my eye. ..."
"... well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election ..."
The disagreement between US President Donald Trump and his main critics on Russia lingers
on. In a July 31 MSNBC segment, former US Ambassador to Russia,
Michael McFaul said
that Trump was tame in his reply to the Russian government measures
taken against US diplomatic interests in Russia. For McFaul, what earlier happened to Russian
diplomatic staff in the US is apparently okay, unlike the Russian retaliation, which came
months AFTER the US based Russian diplomatic personnel were penalized. McFaul misleadingly
underscored that Trump's playing nice with Putin hasn't worked.
Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at
improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his
part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be
politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done.
Some related matters caught my eye.
... ... ...
Trump and Tillerson, have expressed a reluctance in going along with the
increased sanctions against Russia, which is overwhelmingly supported by the mostly groupthink
minded (on Russia) US Congress and Senate. Trump and Tillerson can make a strong case on why
the sanctions are counterproductive. Specifically:
the EU's (notably Germany's) negative reply to the advocated further sanctions
Russia's retaliatory response
limits in persuading Russia to go against its reasonable interests.
When it comes to US mass media and body politic, the last particular is very much in the
too hot to handle category. The present lack of a strongly detailed Trump rebuttal to
the Congress and Senate is what led Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
to say
that the US president has been too capitulationist. Medvedev also said that the
Trump signed sanctions bill is an attempt to squeeze Russia out of foreign markets. (The bill
seeks to penalize Western companies doing business in Russia.)
Within US mass media, there've been some second guessing of the Capitol Hill groupthink
sanctions against Russia. David Ignatius' August 3 Washington Post
column
expresses
that view. Notwithstanding, Ignatius clings to the faulty belief in "Russia's
well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election
." I'd love to see him directly
reply to the
counterclaim
on that opinion, which he presents as a clearly established fact.
The Tucker Carlson hosted Fox News show continues to provide some reasonably dissenting
views.
One such recent segment
featured retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who believes
that Capitol Hill has been overly bellicose towards Russia. Mind you that Macgregor is no
Russophile. He expressed doubt on whether the US and Russia can ever become allies and
characterized the latter as a periodic 300 year menace to the West.
On this point, I expressed my disagreement to Macgregor (who I've had some prior limited
discourse with) by noting that:
The West hasn't been so monolithic, in conjunction with Russia not being such a
perennial threat.
The US fought Germany in two world wars – not Russia.
Russian behavior during America's Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War was more
favorable to America than the British stance.
Russia joined Britain, Prussia and Austria in opposing Napoleon.
Russia had openly inquired about NATO membership upon the Soviet collapse.
Russia was the first nation to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian cooperation
with the US in Afghanistan.
I'm of the belief that patriotically minded Russians should be able to acknowledge bad
moments on Russia's part relative to Poland and some others. Conversely, the same should hold
true when it comes to the wrongs of others. While glorying Poland and bashing Russia, The
National Interest article in question omits the following:
1919 – Under Josef Pilsudski, Poland seeks to take former Russian Empire territory,
largely inhabited by non-Poles with ties to Russia. The Pilsudski led Poles reject a
Russian White offer to combat the Reds, when the Bolsheviks were in a losing situation. The
Russian Whites were willing to recognize a Polish state within Polish ethnic boundaries.
1920 -Thousands of Soviet POWs die under miserable conditions while in Polish
captivity.
1934 – Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, four years prior to the Nazi-Soviet
non-aggression pact.
1938 – Polish, Nazi and Hungarian taking of CzechoSlovak territory, with the Soviet
call for a joint Soviet-West (particularly French) counter support for CzechoSlovakia
rebuffed.
According to German General Heinz Guderian and some other sources, the Soviets needed a
break on their WW II westward offensive. After the Stalingrad battle, the Nazis were still a
threat, as evidenced by the many casualties they were still able to inflict on the Red
Army. The Polish Home Army didn't initially seek to coordinate their uprising with the Red
Army. That only came after the Nazi counterattack in Warsaw.
Under Stalin, the USSR had some especially brutal aspects. Nevertheless, equating the USSR
with Nazi Germany is false. The former utilized a good number of Jews and Poles – something
the latter wouldn't tolerate. Between the two world wars, Poland left something to be desired
on the subject of respecting non-Polish minorities.
One can also go back to the early 1600s Polish subjugation of Russia, as well as the close
to 100,000 Poles who joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia.
Michael
Averko
is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst
and media critic. This article was
initially placed
at the Strategic Culture Foundation's website on August 6.
"... " Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in every server in the USA? " ..."
"... The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of idiocy their successors are now engaging in. ..."
"... Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York, just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly refused, they retaliated. ..."
"... Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help with the North Korea mess. ..."
"... Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over Russia – at least not military one. ..."
"... Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy. ..."
For a while already the Russian diplomats have been openly saying that their American
counterparts are
недоговороспособны
or "non-agreement capable". This all began under Obama, when Kerry flew to meet with Lavrov and
declared 'A', then flew back to Washington, DC and declared 'B'. Then there were the cases in
Syria when the US agreed to a deal only to break that very same deal in less than 24 hours.
That's when the Russians openly began to say that their US colleagues are rank amateurs who
lack even the basic professionalism to get anything done . Now the US has slipped even lower: the Russians speak of US "hellish buffoonery" and "stupid
thuggery".
Wow!
For the normally hyper-diplomatic Russians, this kind of language is absolutely unheard of,
this has never ever happened before. You could say that the Russians are naive, but they
believe that their diplomats should always be, well, diplomatic, and that public expressions of
disgust is just not something a diplomat does. Even more telling is rather than call the
Americans "evil" or "devious", they openly express their total contempt for them, calling them
stupid, incompetent, uneducated and their actions unlawful (read
Maria Zakharova's statement to that effect on Facebook ).
So let me explain what is happening here how the Russians interpreted the latest US thuggery
concerning the Russian Consulate in San Francisco and the Russian diplomatic annexes in
Washington and New York.
First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion of
US diplomatic personnel in Russia. That, by itself, is not the problem. The Russians understand
that Trump is a cornered and weak President, that he has to show how "tough" he is. Sure, they
smile, but they think that this is 'fair game'. The Russians also know that, as a country, the
USA cannot accept the biggest reduction in US diplomatic personnel in history without reacting.
Again, they don't necessarily like it, but they think that this is 'fair game'.
You know what really triggered the Russians off? The fact that the Americans gave them only
2 days to vacate the premises they would seize and that they organized some kind of bizarre
search operation. Let me immediately explain that this is not a case of ruffled feathers by the
Russians, not at all. But here is how they would think about it:
" Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the
premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to
inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in
hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving
that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in
every server in the USA? "
To a Russian, these questions can only have one answer: of
course not. So what is going on here? And then there is the only possible explanation left:
" We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they
lost Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified
to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even the
North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela refuses
to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out of the deal
they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto for Turkey.
Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts and the very best they can do is try to
feel good about illegally harassing our diplomatic personnel! Pathetic, lame, losers!
"
And they are 100% correct.
The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think
that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of
idiocy their successors are now engaging in.
This is also the end of Rex Tillerson. The poor man now has only two options left: resign
(that would be the honorable thing to do) or stay and become another castrated eunuch unable to
even deal with the likes of Nikki Haley, nevermind the North Koreans!
A "spokesperson" for the White House declared that Trump personally ordered the latest
thuggery. Okay, that means one of two thing: either Trump is so weak that he cannot even fire a
lying spokesperson or that he has now fallen so low as to order the "thug life" behavior of the
State Department. Either way, it is a disgrace.
This is also really scary. The combination of, on one hand, spineless subservience to the
Neocons with intellectual mediocrity, a gross lack of professionalism and the kind of petty
thuggery normally associated with street gangs and, on the other hand, nuclear weapons is very
scary. In the mean time, the other nuclear armed crazies have just declared that they have a
thermonuclear device which they apparently tested yesterday just to show their contempt for
Trump and his general minions. I don't think that they have a hydrogen bomb. I don't think that
they have a real ICBM. I don't even think that they have real (usable) nuclear warheads. But
what if I am wrong? What if they did get a lot of what they claim to have today – such as
rocket engines – from the Ukies?
In one corner, the Outstanding Leader , Brilliant Comrade, Young Master and Great Successor,
Kim Jong-un and on the other, The Donald, Grab them by the xxxxx and Make 'Merica Great, the
Grand Covfefe Donald Trump. Both armed with nukes.
Scary, scary shit. Really scary.
But even more scary and depressing is that the stronger man of the two is beyond any doubt
Kim Jong-un.
We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they lost
Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified
to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even
the North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela
refuses to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out
of the deal they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto
for Turkey. Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts
Such is the sad state of affairs in this country and the beginning of the end of the
American Empire (and none too soon). We squandered the potential for world peace when the
Soviets broke up. Instead of taking advantage of the peace windfall, the neocons redoubled
their efforts to dominate by projecting military power. We have been paying the price
since.
Meanwhile, the Chinese have been expanding their power projection peacefully by leveraging
their financial might. The gold-backed RMB is about to replace the petro-dollar. They have
been quietly building alliances across the globe using trade as the incentive, while we have
been killing and maiming people everywhere – and all in vain, apparently to win "hearts
and minds"!
Something that amused me a few days ago was a picture of a Chinese businessman in
Pakistan, escorted by two pro-government, two anti-government, and two rebel businessmen.
Apparently, this assured the safety of the Chinese businessman, even if his companions hated
each other. For our part, we had refused to do business there because we had not found a
means to unify these warring factions – and we are supposed to be the capitalists!
A day of reckoning is fast approaching, my fellow countrymen, and the price we will have
to pay is daunting. It may be a while before we can recover from the coming debacle, however,
I take solace in the following:
The accompanying pain will rewaken all our somnambulant citizenry to who and what has
brought us to this low point in our history, and they may unite to rout the Jewish banking
power that has resulted in our predicament.
We will no longer be able to borrow the trillions that fund our illegal wars across the
globe, and civilians can sleep peacefully once more.
Without our support, and the increasing unification of the countries in the ME (note Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, ) Israel and Saudi Arabia will stand alone, surrounded by angry nations
that have scores to settle. I doubt that those two mischief makers will survive another 5
years.
So, an imposed world peace is possible – even probable. With increasing Russian
influence in the Middle East and the sale of advanced weaponry to the emerging coalition of
Muslim countries, western invasions of these countries will become all but impossible.
Already, the Syrian airspace has been shut out from Israel and the US by Russia's command of
the skies, by S-300 and S-400 defenses and the Russian air force. It is only a matter of time
before Lebanon, too, enjoys the same protection, as will Iraq. Iran is already unassailable.
Turkey has started to distance itself from NATO, and is still smarting from the EU
rejection.
"First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion
of US diplomatic personnel in Russia."
Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it
started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York,
just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly
refused, they retaliated.
Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They
closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help
with the North Korea mess.
It seems whenever the USA threatens to destroy North Korea, their leader threatens to harm
the USA if that happens. Clearly, the North Korean leader is mad, at least those dicks think
so.
Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly
certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was
picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over
Russia – at least not military one.
I don't think that the exceptional ones believe that they can do it either, that train
left the station in the 90's, together with Boris. So now the exceptional ones are throwing
temper tantrums, because the bear doesn't want to lie down and play dead. They had their
chance for a while and they didn't really deserve it either.
The bear that they used to know and love in the 90's was a circus animal and that circus
has left town. The world is changing and if you think that the best protection against
hitting the iceberg is to blow the horn, for everybody to get out of your way because you are
too big to sink, you are heading straight to the bottom, only maybe with accompanying loud
noise from the horn, for which the world really doesn't care too much about.
American media show paranoia about Russia.
Trump Russia connections and election influence are nonsense.
Public sees the nonsense so media dropped the publicity.
Democratic Party will put on charm offensive to say they reject Antifa so to defuse
Republican Trump supporters.
If Democrats succeed they will regain many Congress seats in 2018 election.
Republicans need to put pressure on FBI to complete Clinton investigation.
That completion would clear air for better relations, restore public trust in government and
slap media to be more honest.
Republicans should be glad Russia is in Syria. Russia presence reduces American defense
expense.
Israel wants American presence.
Saudi Arabia wants presence.
People in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq want peace after years of American wars that
cause death and refugee humanitarian crisis.
American journalists except for Seymour Hersh are not allowed to tell Americans facts about
Middle East countries.
Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United
States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States
is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed
to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for
financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy.
Led by the BRICS, the rest of
the world is racing to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency with local
currencies and/or pseudo-currencies and the US-controlled international payment system with
block-chain technologies.
When the movement to de-status the dollar reaches critical mass, the United States will
officially be recognized as a bankrupt Third-World country wracked by inflation. It will no
longer have the luxury of recklessly printing petrodollars to pay its bills.
Not all is bleak. The collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is the sine qua non for
getting our Constitutional liberties back.
John Bolton wants to scrap the deal, provide supports to outsiders and insiders to foment
troubles against the regime and ban all commercial diplomatic and educational legal contacts
to the rest of the world . He wants to inform China and Russia only after the whole thing is over ( Iran has become I
guess Yemen!).
Why is he outside the high security prison or outside the administration?
Genesis of American relentless march to stupidity has been promoted and secured by
dimwit halfling midget like Bolton
Unfortunately Israel instead of keeping and maintaining the logical support from the
intellectual, visionary and moral people has relied on morons like these endangering itself
and USA . These morons wouldn't get a job as a third shift janitor in a slaughter house solely on
merits . They did what they could – race the bottom of the barrel of dishonesty because
that was their upbringing . It made them street smart without necessary IQ.
Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have
criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war
in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.
As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in
an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American.
Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes.
The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for
defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia",
but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them
out an "imperialist".
Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for
you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to
avoid debate.
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people
with stereotypes."
That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal
empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).
You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at
the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic
nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's
position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in
certain areas he sits between two chairs).
The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know
it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made
important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such
as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.
Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even
collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost
all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal
globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism
demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal
ideology.
Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged
revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal
globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and
such.
The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the
mine here. It should collapse first.
The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the
neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve
as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as
neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief
History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml
Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter)
still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine,
but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to
neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned
herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost.
Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his
election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .
For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine
the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who
suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead
or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.
I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism
of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to
squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed
explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which
is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The
second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which
the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.
"... On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department. ..."
"... "One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European Union countries," ..."
"... "What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China? ..."
"... "The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic," ..."
"... "Russia collusion" ..."
"... "A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," ..."
"... "By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," ..."
"... because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth," ..."
"... "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State." ..."
On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco,
as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit
of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic
personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department.
While the decision will likely to ramp up tensions between the two countries, the reasons behind
it might have deeper roots, Rattansi believes.
"One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the
Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist
Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's
ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European
Union countries," Rattansi said, adding that this is all quite in line with the recent Trump
policy of heating up tensions worldwide and searching for enemies.
"What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and
see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China?
The aggressive US policy is being watched closely by the international community and the developing
countries, Rattansi said, stressing that previously purely diplomatic questions are now becoming
international flashpoints.
"The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign
military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are
on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic,"
Rattansi said.
Such behavior might be a desperate attempt to fix the internal problems in the US and help Trump
to beat the "Russia collusion" narrative, which has been plaguing his presidency.
"A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United
States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a
means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that
Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," Rattansi said.
"By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures
of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did
or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow
independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," Rattansi said.
It's quite hard to tell how far the tensions can go, as there will always be diplomatic relations
between Moscow and Washington, " because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth,"
Rattansi believes. "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or
indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon,
Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State."
"... The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that diplomatic mission. ..."
"... So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin, the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign state's property in its own country? ..."
"... Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that. ..."
"... I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example. ..."
"... We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to claim global dominion. ..."
"... And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now? And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through at the moment that is not being much reported on in America. ..."
The shutting and subsequent searches of Russia's diplomatic sites are a meaningless show of power
and domination by the US, which, however, could help push through controversial new intelligence
related legislation, believes Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer. It's part of efforts
to push through the Intelligence Authorization Act that would recognize actors, such as WikiLeaks,
as a "non-state hostile intelligence service," Machon told RT. Read more
'Illegal, meaningless
clownery': Russia condemns US searches of diplomatic property
RT: The State Department is saying the trade mission has been stripped of its immunity, that
it was essentially lifted when that consulate was shut down. The Vienna Convention which governs
consular relations says otherwise. Which do you think has got this right?
AM: The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And
any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that
diplomatic mission.
So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because
for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were
big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin,
the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this
in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot
imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign
state's property in its own country?
RT: It seems a strange decision in a sense – I mean really, all you need to do is conduct an
internet search... that this apparently goes against the Vienna Convention, and yet the US has gone
ahead with this. Why do you think they are doing this?
AM: I don't know, I really don't know why they are trying to do this now. Well, obviously the
tension has been ramping up. So Barack Obama in his last days as a president, at the end of last
year, actually sent home 35 diplomats from Russia, which sort of confirmed in the public mind globally
that Russia was involved in this bogus election hacking. And it just escalated from there.
So more sanctions being placed against Russia at the beginning of August. Russia was retaliating
by expelling more American diplomats and their associates. So it is just escalating from this point.
Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to
try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for
both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American
establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that.
RT: Why conduct a search of the premises? Is it just a pantomime, a kind of theatre?
AM: I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what
is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through
the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually
effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence
agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example.
Now we all know that Julian Assange has had a safe haven in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since
2012. We also know that in 2012, the UK government was looking at the idea that they might try and
raid the embassy against all international law, again to try to get him out to try to get him extradited.
So I'm wondering if this might be linked? There is some sort of meaningless parade of power by
raiding these consulates in America, Russian consulates in America. Because they are going to push
through this new law and then they can use it globally against anyone else they perceived to be an
enemy. And we know that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are perceived to be an American enemy. And they
want him back there, and they want to persecute him under some secret laws.
RT: And this deadline to vacate the premises, it is really short notice, isn't it? We saw that
the Russian gave the US a whole month to clear out. Do you think the US is trying to set a precedent
to let foreign nations know – don't get too comfortable, we could ask you to get out at any moment?
AM: Absolutely. We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente
with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it
has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic
fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to
claim global dominion.
And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now?
And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through
at the moment that is not being much reported on in America.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Did the US intelligence services know something, or this just a dirty provocation by neocons entrenched
in the State Department, who managed to coopt Rex Tillerson ?
Notable quotes:
"... If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules? ..."
"... Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity. Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission? ..."
"... Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it! ..."
Already furious over Washington's "
unprecedented aggressive action, " at the Russian consulate in San Francisco, Moscow has responded
with an official statement calling the "occupation" of diplomatic properties in the US a "blunt act
of hostility. "
As a reminder, Russian diplomats were denied access to the trade mission building despite it
being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity.
The
ministry called the planned "illegal inspection" of Russian diplomatic housing an " unprecedented
aggressive action ", which could be used by the U.S. special services for " anti-Russian provocations"
by the way of "planting compromised items ".
Searches of the Russian premises began on Saturday, after the US State Department ordered the
foreign ministry on August 31 to vacate the premises by September 2.
The FBI arrived in at least two vehicles to search the San Francisco Consulate. The minute the
deadline expired, agents entered the Russian-owned diplomatic property, which in 2016 alone issued
more than 16,000 tourist visas to American citizens.
Russian diplomats have posted photo and video evidence of the searches, which they call a "travesty
of justice."
And now,
as RT reports, the ministry said in a
statement on Sunday. " We regard the incident as a blunt act of hostility, a gross violation
of international law by Washington, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations,"
The ministry called upon the US "to come to their senses and immediately return Russian diplomatic
compounds ." "Otherwise, the US will be responsible for the continuing degradation of relations between
our countries , which largely affect global stability and international security," the statement
continued.
The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations forms the basis for diplomatic immunity and defines
the framework of relation between countries. It states that the premises of [any] mission "shall
be inviolable" and the "agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent
of the head of the mission." Moscow pointed out that all seized properties in New York, Washington,
and San Francisco have diplomatic immunity. "The US special services supported by armed police are
now 'hosting' the occupied buildings," the statement added.
"The US State Department is violating the Vienna Convention; this creates a bad precedent to international
diplomacy," Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, who served as a Greek ambassador in Canada in 2000-2004, told
RT. " I can't see the reason why it is happening. The relations between the US and Russia are not
bad. Some people in the US are trying to make [these relations] bad. Perhaps that was the goal all
along?
Brilliant precedent for the US to have set. Time to increase State's budget for protection
of its premises around the world. Also, every diplomatic mission in the US is now only too aware
that they are vulnerable to this type of action.
I'm in favor of resolving disputes through diplomacy and negotiations rather than violence
and barbarism. Good leadership works toward peace and prosperity. We have had the good fortune
of not having had a destructive World War in many decades. That time might be coming to an end.
Possibly, but in a world of tit for tat escalations, what happens if the Russians now evict
all US personnel from an American consulate, with zero notice, and show the world all the incriminating
evidence of attempted regime change they are bound to find?
If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer
any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other
countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules?
I think there might be consequences that the US no longer seems capable of recognizing: does
no one wargame these scenarios any more?
As a Brit, I can tell you that end-of-empire is a difficult period of readjustment, and it
takes quite a lot of soul-searching to get through unscathed.
What's the probable cause for the searches? Lifting diplomatic immunity from the Trade Mission
is not enough of a cause to conduct a search of the property.
Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's
employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity.
Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed
that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission?
This is beyond weird, it's fucking scary! If this can be done to foreign diplomats covered
by both the US Constitution (searches) and the Vienna Convention (diplomatic immunity), can you
imagine what they can do to us, working stiffs? Rule of Law my ass!
Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress
have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it!
As soon as I'm done typing, I'm gonna take a huge dump into my MAGA hats.
BTW If anybody wants their MAGA hats filled too, lemme know – first come, first served. ;-)
Here's the full text of
the Vienna Convention , but check out Article 22 and, especially, Article 45 below:
Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not
enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the
premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the
peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Article 45
If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or
temporarily recalled:
(a) The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises
of the mission, together with its property and archives;
(b) The sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with
its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;
(c) The sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals
to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.
these blackhearted bastards have no interest in good leadership, peace or any prosperity but
their own. we citizens have got to vote the war party out and the peace party in. break the hold
that the mossad likud zionists have on our government.
president trump, when do you start to assert some authority? left to their own devices you
see what the deep state will do. that the intelligentsia world wide is coming to understand this
better through the exposure of such clumsy false flags as russiagate and charlottesvile is of
valuable but limited consolation.
not being hillary clinton may not be enough in 2018 or 2020.
"Peace party"? Sounds like an oxymoron. People get into the government racket to take power
over others through violent means. Bad means lead to bad ends. And btw, trump has no authority.
The only true authority is personal sovereignty, everything else is a con game.
Of what peace party do you speak? The Russians are asking our leadership to come to their senses.
For that to happen, we would need someone in washington with an IQ over 20. Not going to happen.
With any luck Irma will strenghen to a cat 12 hurricane, hit washington & erase the swamp. We
need to start somewhere!
Russia Urges Washington To "Come To Their Senses" Over Consulate, Denounces "Blunt Act Of Hostility"
My response: The US Legislators should be ashamed of themselves. They have pushed America's executive
and law enforcement groups to do STUPID THINGS.
I am beginning to wonder if America can survive this CRAP much longer?
By the way, the DEMON released during Obama's 2nd term is called NERGAL who is a war god. You
can read about this DEMON below. I really hate where this is headed!!!
Of course, the Churches in America for the most part are absolutely CLUELESS when it comes
to understanding this stuff and impact on people's faith. I have truly come to believe that many
of our godless US legislators are being influence by NERGAL,
From your link:"First appearance, Conan the Barbarian" Great books, and very iffy film, but
hardly conclusive proof that demons are amoung us. It's fiction - made up scary stories to frighten
children and entertain adults. Are you frightened, or entertained?
Clearly, the ultimate goal behind the US State Department's illegal search of the Russian Embassy
was to provoke an escalatory response from the Russians.
As the collapse of the Amerikan Empire gains steam, we should anticipate further insults and
provocations to be levied against the Russian Federation by the despicable US Government.
After Benghazi who is stupid enough to be in any US mission anywhere? Except for the gay US
diplomatic corp in Norway that like little kids and get Hillary's protection.
Further, it makes one wonder; if the US Government has no respect for the privacy (sanctity
of one's dwelling; i.e private property) of a foregin nation, it does not bode well for the privacy
of a US citizen (in any venue).
If Trump ok'd this we can then assume that he's gone full retard - or his Joo master basterds
are dangling the orange haired marionette while his mad dog SecDef bloviates bellicose bullshyte
ad nauseam.
Yes, but for some strange reason the Russians and Putin in particular seem to believe in the
rule of Law. Yesterday's attitude from the US perspective.
It is not a belief in the rule of law (although that may also be true), it is the lack of backbone.
This is NOTHING compared to all the murdered diplomats, business leaders/Putin allies, downed
airliner, downed military transport with military music group, arrests of russians in the public
eye on "Trumped" up charges, sanctions against business leaders, sanctions against key businesses,
international arrest warrants so that business CEO's cannot travel outside Russia etc,
The current action is akin to an Arab taking off his shoe and slapping Putin across the face
with it on an international live news cast. Or Clint Eastwood in a cowboy flick spitting tobacco
into the face of a dirty .... The entire town is watching and knows the magnitude of insult.
Don't Poke The Bear!!! Again, well, not again, well better not again, please stop, please it's
making him cry, ....
Cue the photo opp, Putin riding a horse with no shirt, Putin fishing with no shirt, Putin staring
intensely during a diplomatic meeting/photo session,
The diplomat injuries in Cuba (IF they are real) may be. Should be. But why do so in Cuba,
why put Cuba out there, instead do so in a US friendly country. For that reason I feel it may
be a false story to begin negative PR against Cuba. I believe the travel restrictions were recently
put back in place by Trump.
I doubt the ships. The ships are so huge, move so slow, any competent officer in the control
structure should have been able to see it coming in the dark of night even. IMO Plus there are
more than one system looking for approaching objects.
The worst I ever witnessed during my time in the USMC was an LPD that ran aground in Australia.
The ship collisions are either a sign of gross incompetence (which is unlikely) or sabotage. I
tend to think it is the latter.
But, at this point, is he allowed to make any real decisions? He looks like he's been ring-fenced
by the NWO.
They'd kill him like Kennedy if they could, but at this point it would cause domestic war,
with little or no control on their part. So he lives, has his Twitter feed, and they run the country.
He is president, he can make decisions aplenty. He is making the decisions he wants to make,
they just do not match the lies he told during his campaign.
He is one of "them". But his fans will deflect blame to the point of claiming "they made him
do it/say it".
Russia tells Britain give back the Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back the Falkland Islands before
it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine. Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin
made the shocking remarks when responding to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security
council meeting in New York. ( Daily Express 4 Feb 2017)
Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be
returned' ?
Falklands -- Never Belonged to Argentina (single page):
Ok Bob, I will bite. First off, I do not want to hear any nonsense about how the British Parliament
is so concerned about the 500 fishermen and their families that live on those islands. If the
British government were concerned about its people, it would not be flooding your country with
terrorist Muslim to blow the little Britbobs to bits in London.
Britain is using those islands to claim the vast oilfields around them as "British" property.
How large are the oilfields... well... very large. Ok. So Britian is using a flag that they planted
in the ground 300 years ago as an excuse to rob oil from regions that are, by international law,
in the maritime zone of Argentina, and under Argentina's jurisdiction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/17/rockhoppers-falklands-oil...
Do not believe me? Then why is Argentina able, by international law, to prohibit the development
of the oilfields there? Why? Because these oilfields are on Argentina property. That England has
managed to cajole 2,600 fishermen on a few rocks in the Atlantic to live under British rule does
not give England the right to take a billion barrels of oil that rightfully belong, BY LAW, to
the people of Argentina.
If I can convince 2,600 of your good Muslim friends in England to vote to renounce English
rule, does that give Argentina the right to all of BPs holdings in the North Sea?
Typically British shit. Use any excuse to rob, steal, and pillage, and then call it "empire"
and our "right." You are full of shit Bob.
Russia's opinion does not matter and ZH readers do not care Bob - talk to the nobs in your
own foreign service about their policies toward Russia first.
What Vitaly Churkin said was that if Britain wished to criticise Russia over Crimea, THEN Britain
should give the Falklands to Argentina.
It was a justifiable complaint about double standards, not a definitive statement regarding
Russia's view of International Law.
Everybody understands that except you.
Every sane and normal person on the planet understands that Crimea had a fair referendum, (like
that which Britain depended on for its stance in the Falklands), which was necessitated by the
U.S. overthrowing a democratically elected Government. Western politicians who argue otherwise
merely make themselves look stupid subservient poodles of the Rogue State which the U.S. has now
become.
USA has just crossed the Rubicon. This is undoubtedly the most aggregious act of lawlessness
ever perpetrated by the USA in its history. The sanctity of embassies is the one common sense
rule and tradition that all civilized nations on earth have honored almost throughout history.
Sure, Iran invaded the US embassy, but don't forget how they were chastised and demonized for
it. Now it's the USA's turn to commit the same unthinkable crime.
The USA will never be trusted again, by any nation, for eternity. This is the last straw because
with this one act of supreme lawlessness the US has essentially isolated itself from the rest
of the world *forever*. Talk about shooting yourself in the face.
The rest of the world governments know the US is on its' last legs, period. A pit bull with
steroid rage, with a lethal case of rabies. The smart thing to do is sit back and let it run its'
course, while keeping a safe distance, but it'll be a few years before the dog loses his bite
and no way to keep it on a leash.
How would you run your government's foreign policy under this scenario? Knowing that the only
other options for safety are on the pitbull's kill list before it dies?
A thousand nukes on Russia or China will affect every country on this planet. There are a lot
of world leaders shitting their pants right now, and will for the next decade until the dog rolls
over and dies.
Would it not be best for Russia to at least kinda sorta be on our side with the NorK debacle?
We're giving Putin good reason to quietly support that chubby little dickhead that now has better
nukes and missiles.
What idiot would be on the side of someone who had just kicked them in the balls? The U.S.
needs friends to help deal with NK and it has none left. Why is NK only threatening the U.S.?
Could it perhaps be that only the US is threatening to attack NK? Questions far beyond the ability
of the U.S. State Dept
"... sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state. ..."
"... With a digital media, the Espionage Act could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C. ..."
The United States, uniquely among nations, believes that its writ runs all over
the world!and that it has a right to use its courts of law to seek retributive justice even in
situations that did not involve American citizens and occurred in a foreign land. No other
country sends its marshals overseas to forcibly detain fugitives from "justice." If the United
States is truly exceptional, it is no doubt due to its hubris in declaring itself to be the
final arbiter of what goes on all around the globe.
It seems that nearly every week Congress outdoes itself in passing bills that are intended
to pummel one foreign adversary or another. Russia and Iran have become particular favorites
with nary a dissenting voice when new sanctions are put in place, together with mechanisms to
ensure that a puissant chief executive shall have no ability to mitigate the punishment. And
sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation
that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state.
The latest
Senate Intelligence
Authorization Act (SB 1761) , which was released by the committee on August 18 when few
senators were in town, is in the nature of a routine document. It notably calls for "more" in
terms of both probing and revealing Russian spying and alleged aggression, but that was to be
expected due to the current panic over Moscow and its intentions. It will nevertheless almost
certainly become law even though few members of congress will actually bother to read any part
of it.
The bill has already been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee and will likely
go immediately to a vote in the full Senate when that body reconvenes after the August recess.
It will almost certainly be approved unanimously.
That anyone in the alternative media is paying any attention at all to what the bill says is
due to the last section in the document, numbered 623. It reads "SENSE OF CONGRESS ON
WIKILEAKS: It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks
resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be
treated as such a service by the United States."
Thanks for this very informative and important article Phil! Anyone who thinks this stops at
Wikileaks is foolishly infantile, and ignorant of what has been going on in the U.S. legal
system now for years. McCain, Graham, and their Democratic ally Joe Lieberman were
instrumental in getting Congress to pass Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA (now Public Law) which
provided for arbitrary military detention of anyone deemed a threat by the Commander in Chief
(FKA President).
How far that reached was shown in DOJ arguments in the case of Hedges v.
Obama, where it was argued that, of course, journalists and activists were subject to
military detention for their "expressive activities."
With a digital media, the Espionage Act
could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has
been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the
amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act
putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at
risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C.
It is interesting that on Sunday, Sept 3, 2017 there was no anti-Russian hysteria in US MSM anymore.
The flow of anti-Russian news just disappeared
Russia still need year to recover from Yeltsin carnage, so the best policy for Russia is just do
not react on this provocation. direct retaliation is counterproductive.
To the Russian Federation. If this faggot pedo of a U.S. Marine doesn't make it clear enough
at this point (
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-03/mattis-we-have-many-options-ach... ), after the banks
attempted to control your resources post-Soviet Union for 28 years using threats of war and well
"war" in your neighborhood, with paid for mercenaries in American $$$ to kill their own in places
like your Southern Caucus, Dagestan
They are desperate, bankrupt financially and without resources with no equal in human history...
And angry at their own worst choices going on the last 72 years and in need of a Hemorrhoid-ectomy
with one of these ( http://www.mashpedia.com/RS-28_Sarmat
)
TIMES UP!... GLOVES NEED TO COME OFF!... YOU GAVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT!... Now it's time to throw
them out of your Country for good and tell them YOU'RE READY FOR ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO NEXT!!!
I really wish the Russians would respond in kind but I suspect they have too much class. Link
for more videos of yet another treaty violation by the US government.
Wow, we really are heading for war with Russia. This is turning into America vs. World. It
never ends well for the country that tries to go to war against the rest of the world. There is
no sane reason to do this unless your desire is the destruction of America or a religious goal
of bringing about the end days.
We need to find these lunatics and traitors and we need to get rid of them before they poison
the Northern Hemisphere in blood and ash.
There is no 'finding them', RD. They operate in plain view. But they have the 'cattle' herded
in essentially any direction they so choose, by way of Fake News, Sports & entertainment and social-media
distraction. It takes a thinking electorate to see and identify their machinations. Which is why
they get so upset when thinking people speak...
What Katrina van den Heuvel does not understand is that American imperialism in not compatible with
independent, sovereign Russia, only with vassal Yeltsin Russia. that why Russian believe that the
USA is trying "regime change" via color revolution in Russia. Obama administration tried this and
spend a lot of cash delivered by diplomatic mail on this exercise in 2012. They failed. So the
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" is right in reporting that "the Kremlin apparently believes the
United States seeks regime change in Russia."
So as long as the USA continues building global neoliberal empire led from Washington, tensions
are hostilities are inevitable
Notable quotes:
"... In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower. ..."
"... NATO expansion helped convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia. ..."
"... In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. ..."
"... The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. ..."
"... Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate military posturing. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border. ..."
"... An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc, would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine. Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices. ..."
On January 26 of this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock
from 11:57 to 11:58:30 (midnight represents nuclear apocalypse). The Bulletin considers these
days more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for good reason. The new cold war between
Russia and the United States is punctuated by perilous military face-offs in three arenas: in Syria;
in the skies over the Baltic Sea, on Russia's western border with three hundred thousand NATO troops
on high alert and both Russia and NATO ramping up deployments and exercises; and in Ukraine.
The rising tensions express totally contradictory perspectives. In the United States, across the
political spectrum, Putin is seen as a merciless autocrat with expansionist designs. He's denounced
for aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, and for propping up a brutal dictator in Syria. Investigations
on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election -- and possible collusion
with the Trump campaign -- have generated a continuing media frenzy that poisons any
discussion.
In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower.
When Bill Clinton trampled upon repeated promises and began expanding NATO towards the Russian border,
George F. Kennan, the architect of containment, warned of a "tragic mistake." NATO expansion helped
convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia.
In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. Putin does want to reassert Russia's
influence on the international stage, and challenge what he sees as America's unipolar delusion.
The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the
legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. The Pentagon does designate Russia as its leading
adversary. The United States has encouraged the "color revolutions" in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine.
Both countries have mucked about in the others' internal and electoral politics.
Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently
need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement
and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate
military posturing.
The first priority for the United States should be reengaging Russia in efforts to reduce nuclear
arsenals, and to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials. They should be working together
-- as they did in the P5+1 negotiations over Iranian nuclear-weapons capacity --
to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
The United States and Russia also have a shared concern about the terrorist threat posed by ISIS,
Al Qaeda and their offshoots. In Syria, cooperation with Russia may be the only way to stabilize
the nation so it can eventually recover from its horrific war. The United States has no intention
of committing the troops and resources needed to overthrow Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Washington
would do well to increase cooperation with Russia in the war against ISIS, and seek joint guarantees
of a cease-fire that gives the Syrian people a respite from six years of brutal warfare, and begins
to slow the refugee flows destabilizing Europe.
At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening
a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border.
That expansion will be virtually impossible to undo, but the United States and Russia could reverse
the buildup of troops and stand down the military exercises on both sides of the Russian border without
any formal agreement.
An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them
to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc,
would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation
of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine.
Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum
on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices.
... ... ...
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation.
This is extremely week article. The problem here is the logic of neoliberalism requires
crushing Russian attempt to restore sovereignty and open the country to multinationals on
multinationals, not Russia. terms.
In this sense the USA play role of armed enforcer of neoliberal values around the globe and
as long as it continues to play this role normalization of relations with Russia without color
revolution (that Obama administration attempted to launch in 2012 but failed) are somewhat
unrealistic.
...failing to arrest the downward spiral in U.S.-Russia relations poses real dangers. The most
dramatic, if least likely, is a direct military confrontation leading to uncontrollable
escalation and potentially a global catastrophe. Many dismiss this risk, arguing that neither
the United States nor Russia wants to commit suicide and would show restraint; however, the
same assumption that the other side would pull back at the last moment contributed to World War
I. The truth is that no one knows what might happen if U.S. and Russian warplanes started
shooting at each another or if American cruise missiles hit Russian bases in Syria. Russia
could retaliate asymmetrically, perhaps in eastern Ukraine...
...Russia could double down on its emerging alignment with China. Russia and China maintain
strong mutual suspicions, and China is a much stronger country by most measures. Although both
are interested in normal relations with the United States, and would be reluctant to go too far
in ways that could lead to a serious conflict, they are fearful of and, indeed, irritated with
Washington. They are drawing closer economically and militarily, and are increasingly
coordinating their foreign policies. Moscow and Beijing are concerned over American-led
encirclement and, specifically, expanding U.S. antimissile systems that threaten their
retaliatory capabilities. At a minimum, the worse the U.S.-Russia relationship, the more a
rising China can count on Russian support in any disagreement with the United States.
Emboldening China in this fashion cannot be in the U.S. national interest.
... ... ...
The obstacles to seeking a new approach to Russia are so numerous and momentous that many
may feel that even trying is not a good use of President Trump's time, energy and limited
political capital. Yet if it goes badly wrong, the U.S.-Russia relationship could end in
nuclear conflict.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the
Center for the National Interest.
Looks like the USA now playing into Chinese hands...
Notable quotes:
"... The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA. ..."
They can create alternative for payments with each other but it not alternative because they need
swift for interbank exchange with banks in swift system anyway.
Domestically it can be replaced with whatever homebrew solution and not issue, but it needed
for interneational tranasactions, this is the point.
And If you declared to be "cut" out of swift, it will not stop you for using it domestically
but swift system international banks will just stop any transactions with you by whatewer means.
All this talk is overhyped, will Germany pay for gas by trucks with cash or what. When we at
this point – cards is last of your problem. So swift will stay in any case. mir is old news
The idea was floated to cut Russia out of SWIFT, but it was quickly stepped on by the Americans
themselves. Cutting Iran out of SWIFT was a transparently self-interested move by the United States
to discourage an oil brokerage which avoided use of the US dollar as a benchmark – don't want
people getting ideas. Western states which got on board were sharply rebuked when the EU's General
Court ruled that
sanctioning two Iranian banks was illegal and that they must be compensated for their losses,
as no proof was offered that they were doing business on behalf of 'the regime'.
The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that,
but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving
US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against
the USA.
You could times that by ten in Russia's case. So they won't do it. But Russia becoming fiscally
more self-reliant and the international business community becoming more suspicious of American
manipulating are overall good things.
And two large countries agreeing to remove the US dollar from their bi-national trades is a
blow to dollar dominance.
Presumably a BRICS SWIFT could be developed to facilitate transactions among the members. It could
be part of the effort to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Presumably,
other countries can be added resulting in more of a global payment system.
As a total novice in
such matters, I can state with complete confidence it will be a likely next step in the growing
financial power of Russia, China and like-mined nations.
Does the USA tried to replay Iranian sanctions round on Russia? As Russia depends on the USA
companies for many technologies this can be painful.
Notable quotes:
"... That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran provided that they do not involve purchases. ..."
"... But with the American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more cautious approach. ..."
"... it stimulates a turn to Iranian alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system. ..."
"... the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened earlier this year a large sales center in Iran. ..."
U.S.-imposed economic sanctions often have been misdirected and counterproductive, but a new
sanctions-related development involving Iran is especially illustrative.
First, some background. Iran has been a favorite target of American politicians who use
sanctions as a vehicle for expressing disapproval for a regime, with little apparent thought
about the actual effects of the sanctions. Since the entering into force of the nuclear
agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which in the eyes of most
governments successfully resolved the issue of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, the United
States has been alone among major powers in continuing to sanction Iran. The sanctions that the
United States has piled on Iran for years have become so extensive and complex, and the
penalties for violation so severe, that many American companies have erred on the side of
caution by forgoing business opportunities in Iran even more than is legally required. The fear
of God, or rather of the U.S. Treasury Department, has made them wary of inadvertently stepping
across some unclear line.
The new development is that Apple is
attempting to shut down
apps developed by Iranians
for use on iPhones inside Iran. The sanctions prohibit Apple
from selling its phones in Iran, but millions of the popular devices have been smuggled into
the country from places such as Dubai and Hong Kong. Hence the market for apps that Iranians
find useful, such as an Uber-like ride-hailing service known as Snapp. Apple is removing
Iranian-developed apps, including Snapp, from its App Stores. The company issued a message to
Iranian developers in which it attributed the move to "U.S. sanctions regulations".
That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google
taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android
phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran
provided that they do not involve purchases.
Maybe Google is on firm legal ground.
But with the
American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a
resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few
experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more
cautious approach.
Impeding the full use by Iranians of their iPhones does absolutely nothing to weaken the
Iranian regime, to punish it for behavior we don't like, to deter it from future behavior we
might not like, or to accomplish any other ostensible purpose of the sanctions that have led
Apple to do what it is doing. It only takes ordinary Iranians farther away from fully enjoying
an American product with an American operating system, and
it stimulates a turn to Iranian
alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system.
As with many of the U.S.
sanctions,
the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that
are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the
economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
An instructive irony of Apple removing apps that ordinary Iranians use is that recently
Apple removed apps that ordinary Chinese were using to circumvent government censorship and
gain use to non-Chinese internet sites. The Iranian regime, like the Chinese regime, blocks the
use of some popular Western-based social media (although the Iranian telecommunications
minister has hinted that some of these restrictions may be dropped).
The difference is that in one case Apple is responding to pressure from the Chinese
government, while in the other case it is responding to pressure not from Iran but instead from
the U.S. government.
Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is
prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened
earlier this year a large sales center in Iran.
improve relations ," this doesn't seem sincere expectation. Rather, the State Department's
comments seem more interested in trying to shift the blame.
The State Department credited itself for only closing one consulate and two annexes, saying
they "have chosen to allow the Russian government to maintain some of its annexes" to try to keep
the situation getting worse.
One official was quoted as saying that "it is our hope that the Russians will recognize that
they were the ones who started the discussion" on facility closures, citing the recent US loss
of a warehouse in Moscow and a vacation house.
Absent in all official US comments were the December 2016 US moves to expel Russian diplomats
and seize two vacation houses. While Russia couched their closures as retaliation for that, US
officials are choosing to ignore December and present today's moves as retaliation for Russia's
closures.
The comments about hoping for better relations don't appear realistic, as the closure of a
consulate is a major step forward in escalation of tensions, and will almost certain oblige Russia
to take further moves. These tit-for-tat measures show no sign of ending any time soon. The best
we can hope is that it doesn't further escalate.
"... "We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation by planting compromising items," the statement also said. ..."
BREAKING: Moscow summons US Ambassador to submit protest note over diplomatic downsizing
September 2, 2017 - Fort Russ News - Paul Antonopoulos
Russia has call for the deputy chief of mission of the US Embassy in Moscow, Anthony F. Godfrey,
to submit a protest letter over US plans to search the Russian trade mission in Washington, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement just made moments ago.
The statement revealed that Russian diplomats have been denied access to the trade mission
building despite being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity. Because of this gross
violation of diplomatic immunity, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that:
"The US authorities must stop the gross violations of international law and refuse to encroach
on the immunity of Russia's diplomatic institutions. Otherwise we reserve the right to reciprocate
on the basis of reciprocity."
"We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of
Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an
aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation
by planting compromising items," the statement also said.
This was triggered when days ago the US ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in San
Francisco and the downsizing of its diplomatic presence in New York City and Washington DC.
NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA
role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they
can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert
attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story
they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting
machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting
and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the
votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is
who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and
making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear
mongering neocons.
Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
The last piece
pointed out that the NYT headline "
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake
news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The
relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further
inspection powers were authorized.
Today we find another similarly
lying headline in the New York Times.
Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny
By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017
The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential
election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:
There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and
software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a
Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more
reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various
innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there
of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.
The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference
and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically
irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to
paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by
the editors of the New York Times.
This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential
election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence
-none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia.
Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the
issue. There is
zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.
The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic
partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services)
to:
cover up for Hillary Clinton's and
the DNC's failure in the election and to
build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial
racketeering.
The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence
for them. In many cases they hide behind "
intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments"
of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and
not reported at all.
Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM |
Permalink
Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their
embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to
smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation
and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.
The end of this story
has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people
chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election
hacking.
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against
the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly
hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.
At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines,
and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian
hacking"!
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what
they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are
loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?
Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?
If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to
make Israel look reasonable.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with
computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state,"
said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House.
"If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research
and investigation, and you may not find out even then."
...
the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book
software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.
They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by
an editor.
Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get
published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does
not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure
{actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations
however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're
paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering
possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.
When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which
Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in
the NYT, WaPo et al.
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering
more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their
wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press
on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned
disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par
excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general
election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast
would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running
away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these
troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but
it doesn't, so it isn't.
It is interesting to see posts of neocon Gary below and reactions of other commenters to his
nonsense...
Notable quotes:
"... Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University and is the author of ..."
"... The "smaller or weaker" states you mention had better not involve themselves in a campaign to demonize Russia and everything Russian-but above all they should try to ..."
"... Not attack it directly like Georgia did in 2008 ..."
"... Attack it indirectly as Ukraine did after the Maidan coup in 2014 ..."
"... In both cases an appropriate and symmetric response was handed to them by Russia. You know, being small or weak does not mean that you are virtuous ..."
"... Gary believes America is protected by a comic book superhero version of Jesus that will magically intercept all of Russia's ICBM's. These people are crazies. ..."
"... Before to come to conclusions, remember please about jar of white powder Colin Powell. Where are the Iraqi nuclear weapons? When Russia invaded Using the word "invaded" compare the situation in Crimea and Iraq, or Libya. Just think about it for leisure. ..."
"... Crimea is a done deal. It is more likely that Russia would give Moscow than Crimea. As for the Donbass rebels, sure, as long as the Kiev regime ceases its brutal repression tactics across the rest of Ukraine, I believe an understanding where Donbass integrates somehow with Ukraine could be reached. ..."
"... Putin certainly came intending to negate the disasters of the Yeltsin years. He has, and Russians widely admire him for that. However, the assertion that he wants to return to the USSR and its overpowering of all neighbors is neocon dogma, not based in anything Putin has said or done. ..."
"... Putin actually said this: "Those who do not regret that the USSR has fallen apart have no heart, those who want it back have no brain" ..."
"... Every administration since 1992 has expanded NATO eastward, up to the border of Russia itself. NATO is a nuclear-armed military alliance. How would we feel if the Warsaw Pact was deploying thousands of soldiers and missiles along our southern and northern borders? ..."
"... Why are american journalists always inventing fake desires for Putin and Russia. It is like saying the US wants world domination and to defeat Russia and China. Well, it would be nice if it happened, but we are not working toward it, are we? ..."
What interests do the United States and Russia have in common? Both bear a unique
responsibility as the two nuclear superpowers and share a commitment to preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but when it comes to defining exactly what they
mean by that, they cannot always agree. Both agree that terrorism is a common threat, but often
have different definitions of who is a terrorist, as is clear from the difficulties they have
had cooperating in the fight against ISIS in Syria. And, unlike the United States' relationship
with China, for instance, it has limited common economic interests with Russia, and hence fewer
stakeholders to promote continued and improved relations. Russia's main exports are
hydrocarbons and military hardware, neither of which the United States needs. And the difficult
investment climate and weakness of the rule of law!as well as the current sanctions regime!act
as a brake on further U.S. investment.
Despite the lack of common interests, there are issues on which the United States and Russia
must and can work together. The war in Syria, with its catastrophic human toll, is the most
pressing issue. Beyond the current cease-fire, Washington and Moscow must continue to
deconflict air operations and to provide humanitarian relief. The fact that bilateral military
ties have resumed is a hopeful sign. The situation in North Korea could also be an avenue for
cooperation, although Russia opposes putting further pressure on Kim Jong-un. And opening talks
about designing rules of the road in the cyber sphere would be desirable.
Ukraine remains another major stumbling block to improved ties. The appointment of
Ambassador Kurt Volker as special envoy for Ukraine is a welcome development. But the prospects
for the Minsk agreement being fulfilled are not good. Secretary Tillerson has hinted that there
may be a way forward outside of Minsk, but that will require imagination and determination on
all sides to resolve the conflict.
Given the fundamental differences between the two sides on a host of issues, and the lack of
trust, the U.S.-Russian relationship will at best remain a limited partnership, with
cooperation on some issues of mutual interest, and disagreement or competition on others.
Things are unlikely to look so different under a Trump administration from the way they did
under the Obama administration, barring some major new revelation about Russian activities
during the election campaign last year. That should not be surprising, since the basic issues
that confront the United States and Russia have not really changed that much over the past
decade. Given these realities, skilled management of a challenging relationship and avoiding a
deterioration in ties are probably the most to be expected for the foreseeable future.
Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at
Georgetown University and is the author of
The Limits of Partnership: U.S-Russian
Relations in the Twenty-First Century
.
Are you saying that the smaller or weaker states on Russia's western borders must submit
to Russia's control as during the Cold War? Sorry, but we are not going to let Russia bully
or threaten them. They made the decision to join the NATO precisely out of distrust and fear
of Russia, confirmed by Putin's belligerence and aggression in Georgia and Ukraine. Blame it
on Putin's nostalgia for Russia's domination over Eastern Europe and the occupation of the
Baltic states.
They made the decision to join the NATO
In some countries (new NATO members) had a
referendum on this subject?
But Crimea held a referendum on joining Russia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia held a referendum
on independence and fought for their independence.
If you refer to the decision of the people, then do it always, not only when you want it.
The "smaller or weaker" states you mention had better not involve themselves in a
campaign to demonize Russia and everything Russian-but above all they should try to
:
A)
Not attack it directly like Georgia did in 2008
B)
Attack it indirectly as Ukraine did after the Maidan coup in 2014
In both cases an appropriate and symmetric response was handed to them by Russia. You
know, being small or weak does not mean that you are virtuous
.
US treats Russia a major power, not a minor country. We've got a lot of special bilateral
agreements on nukes and other things. When Russia invaded Ukraine/Crimea we didnt do a Desert
Storm operation or even send defensive weapons to Ukraine. Ditto with Georgia 2008, Syria in
2016. US and West knows these aren't worth risking confrontation. Russia still has its
Security Council UN seat. So, I think we are "somewhere in the middle", as you say.
Russia's leaders want to dominate their smaller neighbors without the West criticising
them harshly, and they want to invest their klepto-wealth in the West's safe banking and real
estate world so that a future Russian leader can't re-steal it. They will probably succeed in
getting one or these goals, but not both. We Westerners love to criticize bogeyman, and
Russia is still more interesting in that role than the Chinese. But at least a bogeyman is
respected, not ignored. Until Russia becomes part of the West, and not its own Eurasian civ,
this is the best we can all hope for.
Gary believes America is protected by a comic book superhero version of Jesus that
will magically intercept all of Russia's ICBM's. These people are crazies.
Before to come to conclusions, remember please about jar of white powder Colin Powell.
Where are the Iraqi nuclear weapons? When Russia invaded Using the word "invaded" compare the
situation in Crimea and Iraq, or Libya. Just think about it for leisure.
How would you like me to think about Russia military intervention in southern Ukraine
(i.e. Crimea), and its involvement supporting with the separatists in SW Ukraine? Are you
saying these these events not happen and continue to happen? Are you saying the reporting
from those areas are some sort of Western media conspiracy against pacifist Russia?
First of all most of western reporters have never been to Donbass or Crimea. They usually
stay in Kiev or on Ukrainian territory close to the border with DNR/ LNR. Some of them just
copy/paste each other's nonsense. If RF was involved in a conflict there would have been no
Ukrainian as state in a week (remember Georgian conflict?).
There are "specialists" in DNR/LNR, nothing more. I've got some relatives there so I need
neither Russian nor western media to tell me what's really going on there.
About Crimea try asking people from there or someone who has really been there recently. I
guarantee that if you tell locals about "the occupation" they'll just laugh in your face.
I don't think we're saying different things. You seem to think that I think that a million
RF troops and thousands of tanks are in Ukraine. I never said that, nor did I say anything
about an occupation of Crimea. I said "intervention" in Crimea, and continued military
support of separatists in SW Ukraine.
I guess the morale of the story is never give up your nukes, and never trust the Russians.
Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Sweden should create their own independent nuclear deterrent so
they aren't at the mercy of Russia, and aren't reliant on a permanent US umbrella.
Question:
Why haven't you guys "intervened" in Odessa yet? Most reports I hear are that a
majority of population are Russian, so you would welcomed with open arms, just like Crimea.
Why are you letting your Russian-speaking brethren wallow in Ukrainian corruption and Western
decadence?
Well, about Odessa it's not quite true. There is a Russian minority, they could have held
two referendums as people did in Crimea (on independence from Ukraine and another one on
accession to RF) but no-one would ever let them since the city is very well guarded.
Besides people are very much afraid 'cause they remember what so called "patriots" did few
years ago (about 50 people burned alive). Now we come to the nuclear question. Guess what
will happen if mindless nationalistic ukropithecus government gets its bloody hands on this
tech (they are now talking that Rostov and Kuban' is there territory).
There will be trouble, 'cause in that case we will have to interfere in a full scale.
Other countries you've mentioned will never even try to get the tech cause it is far cheaper
to cry in hysterics asking US troops to defend them (they have succeeded in this). You could
give them a few bombs, pols now know how to use those. But I doubt you ever will. And we do
not have a million in the army. It is better to have a medium size but a highly professional
army and that's what we aim for.
P.S. In some time there will be riots not only in Odessa but
in all cities of Ukraine. They used to have a thief for a president, now they have thieves
and murderers.
Yes, yes, of course, the Ukrainians are so much more corrupt and murderous than Russia's
competent and loving government. Its a great wonder why they wanted to become independent
country 25 years ago and a mystery that they haven't overthrown their corrupt leaders and
asked to re-join Mother Russia.
The only possible explanation must be that the CIA has bribed
its leaders and brainwashed the Ukraine population with anti-Russia propaganda, including
that fairy tale about how Moscow starved 5 or 10 million of their grandparents in the 1930s.
Ha hahahahah.
Come on Sergey, give me a break. I appreciate your insights about Odessa, but Russians
should stop the propaganda that Ukrainians are like children and incapable of
self-government.
You didn't get what I was trying to say. Every Ukrainian government was corrupt (in some
way or another), but none was killing its own people, none was making the 2nd Ward War
criminals their national heroes, none was blocking media, arresting and killing jurnalists,
none except this one.
About their "independence": remind me what was Nuland and McCain doing
there during maidan?
What was she discussing on the phone with Jim "the lord of Ukraine" Payete? What was Jo Biden's son doing there? And it is just a coincidence that in the SBU
building in Kiev there are two floors with CIA personnel, and SBU agents are not permitted
there, isn't it? You do not need to brainwash people a lot 'cause there are pretty many
rationalists in western Ukraine. You just need to help them to come to power, all the rest
they'll do themselves. I wish Ukraine could be a sovereign and neutral state, but it became a
US vassal, an anti-Russian puppet. Remember who said this: "Samosa is a son of a ..., but he
is our son of a ..." )? This is a huge political game.
And for God sake we do not want them
to become a part of RF. It is a huge pain in a very well-known part of a body. Would you like
for example Honduras to be another US state? I doubt so. And I have no illusions about our
government: some of them should be hanging out somewhere in "sunny" Magadan (lots of good
prisons there for them).
And about that starvation: far more Russians died in southwest of Russia than in Ukraine.
This was a crime but not a crime against Ukrainians as a nation. Golodomor is a
ukronationalists' and former Hitler's collaborators' lie. It has been around for about 65
years, this is not a new invention.
You speak as if someone stole your car. You somehow completely forgot about the people who
live in Crimea. In the Crimea there was a referendum, 80% of the total adult population voted
for joining Russia (I'm talking about the total number, not of those who went to vote).
My friends go every year to rest into Crimea with young children. Would you go for a vacation
in Libya, or Iraq? Citizens would surely will make a very warm welcome for you, because you
freed them from the bloody dictators and brought democracy...
"The appointment of Ambassador Kurt Volker as special envoy for Ukraine is a welcome
development."
Sure, what is wrong with appointing a rabid Russophobe like Volker (John "all Russians are
evil" McCain) at this position? The first move by Volker was to push for advanced weapon
deliveries for Ukraine, thus fueling the now quasi-frozen conflict. Very constructive..
Russia would bulldoze Ukraine if they ever started stepping outside the box with new
weapon systems. There would be no Ukraine left to whine about Crimea.
Just tell Russia to stop supporting the Donbas rebels, negotiate with Ukraine on Crimea
and respect the sovereignty of his neighbors. Then we can have mutual respect.
Crimea is a done deal. It is more likely that Russia would give Moscow than Crimea. As for
the Donbass rebels, sure, as long as the Kiev regime ceases its brutal repression tactics
across the rest of Ukraine, I believe an understanding where Donbass integrates somehow with
Ukraine could be reached.
Till then, they will fight for their freedom. As for mutual
respect, how about doing something about rampant russophobia in US media, Hollywood etc? That
would be a good start.
I'm an American and do wish to visit Russian Crimea one day. It sounds like you guys are
really turning that place into quite a tourist destination (with plenty of military
protection). Well done on the Turbines ;-)
You are more than welcome! Summertime is the best season for visiting Crimea. Another
tourist attraction is on its way-
https://sputniknews.com/rus...
Just don't take pictures of it! :-P Joking aside, I just
hope relations will at least normalize soon. The vast majority of Russian people, though
somewhat disenchanted, still very much like USA and its people!
And you (as anyone else) is always welcome. There are still some major problems in Crimea
(electricity being turned off from time to time, Kiev regime blocking water supplies and
harassing people moving through the border) but they will be solved when the bridge is
finished (ukrops will likely try blowing it up so it needs to be well protected). P.S. There
was a grand jazz festival in Koktebel recently with quite a number of musicians from the US.
It's held every summer.
I'm sorry but America bears the bulk of the blame. This goes all the way back to the
breakup of Yugoslavia and the CIA's unmitigated disastrous role in the whole sordid affair.
Ending with bombing Serbia - the country that Russia literally went to global war to protect
early in the 20th century.
BS! The situation with the former Yugoslavia was that Serbia was trying to expand its
territory at the expense of Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, so the Serbs started attacking the
non-Serbs there hoping to drive them out and creating Greater Serbia. The Serbs were
attacking Sarajevo with anti-aircraft guns, mortars and snipers resulting in death of
civilians there. They also massacred over 7,000 Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica. The UN
had enough and authorized the NATO to attack Serbian targets to get them to stop killing and
sit down to a peace talk.
You don't get to create an alternative history to suit your biases.
These "7000
Bosnian men and boys" (we call these people Islamic terrorists) during their raids from
Srebrenica cruelly killed three thousand Serbian women and children.
No, they weren't terrorists. You just pretend that they were to justify murdering them and
no, they didn't killed any Serbian women. That is just your invention and YOUR alternative
history.
Putin certainly came intending to negate the disasters of the Yeltsin years. He has, and
Russians widely admire him for that. However, the assertion that he wants to return to the USSR and its overpowering of all
neighbors is neocon dogma, not based in anything Putin has said or done.
Putin has said the opposite, that while the heart may see the end of the USSR as disaster,
the head must see that it was the right thing for Russia.
Putin's actions have been reactions, and he has stopped short, as when he pulled back out
of Georgia after the lunatics of Georgia attacked Russia, with encouragement from the neocon
lunatics of the Bush Admin led by Cheney himself.
Our problems with Russia are real, but they are not what these ideologues pretend.
We could deal with the Russians, to find a level that would feel safe enough for them to
cooperate on other issues. Instead, we are set on feeding their paranoia.
You are right.
Putin actually said this: "Those who do not regret that the USSR has fallen
apart have no heart, those who want it back have no brain"
.
And about Georgia: they attacked
and killed our peacekeepers while bombing Tskhinval so literally they stacked RF. Later it
was recognised by Heidy Taliaviny and EU parliament.
But no-one seem to care now 'cause we
are once again called "aggressors". Quite convenient for some western politicians.
Every administration since 1992 has expanded NATO eastward, up to the border of Russia
itself. NATO is a nuclear-armed military alliance. How would we feel if the Warsaw Pact was
deploying thousands of soldiers and missiles along our southern and northern borders?
This is
the only real problem we have with Russia, which is, like most countries we deal with, a more
or less capitalistic, and more or less democratic state. There is no fundamental reason we
should not be partnering with Russia to manage the difficulties of the current and developing
world situation.
Why are american journalists always inventing fake desires for Putin and Russia. It is
like saying the US wants world domination and to defeat Russia and China. Well, it would be
nice if it happened, but we are not working toward it, are we?
if everyone in the world
started making fake claims like this about our aims and then acted based on those fantasies,
it would be pretty difficult.
We could of course deny it as much as we would like to, but it
would only be taken as confirmation of our nefarious ways. Come on. Can we once take the
Russians at their word and just agree that all they want is respect and sovereignty in their
own territory and no NATO bases near their borders and just for once base our analysis on the
facts rather than fiction?
No, we can't take the Russians at their word seriously. They have been lying for so long
about their goals in the hope of fooling us into dropping our guard. The former Warsaw Pact
countries and the independent Baltic states will stay under the NATO protection that they
want until Putin and his ilks leave.
Gary, you are absolutely absurd. Just look at the facts. We have lied about every single
war since the Cold War ended. The Russians are lying? Look at Trump for fsck sake? Compared
to him, Putin is a high moral authority. Seriously, you must thing that people outside of
United States are as blind, uncaring and uneducated as the people inside.
The public record is too easy to find. It's like asking off-duty soldiers not to see
wikileaks because the material is outside their clearance. Absolutely absurdity.
America's fantasy world needs to come to an end.
You have done a heroic effort to makes us all believe in ZENU and the easter bunny
though
Before speaking about lies look at your own governments starting from Clinton times, take
a good look at your media as well. Goebbels would have been pleased. Remember this quotation:
"tell as many lies as you can, eventually you will believe them yourself". That is happening
now, do not be fooled.
Why do all these Russians dominate this Comments section? Does National Interest do a lot
of advertsing there, or is this some kind of target for their government's disinformation
campaign?
Hey Russians - is there some sort of similar Russian-based web publication I can go to
give you guys my opinions on GeoPolitics, or would i be wasting my time?
They are probably working at the troll factory in St. Petersburg. It is their duty to
divert, deflect and lie about everything, and they have a daily quota to make many
nonsensical pro-Russia and anti-American comments.
The author cites "...the difficult investment climate and weakness of the rule of law..."
The problem with Russia is the internal climate of being a mafia controlled security state.
The rules of the game are much different in Russia. And, given that Russia continuously tries
to degrade European alliances, western organizational structures, and faithfully poses a
military threat to the west...we can say that we've never had "good" relations with either
the USSR or Russia.
A war with Russia will eventually go nuclear; Russia will be tempted to use the nuke
option if they perceive losing the war, and the same goes for the US-led NATO forces. The
biggest losers will be the Europeans because the war, if any, is in Europe. NATO is not
protecting European security; rather it is serving more for the US's national interests by
deploying NATO forces right up to the Russian borders. NATO's relentless recruitment of
former USSR's satellite states in eastern Europe would be considered as 'casus belli',
inviting aggression rather than deterring it.
Very technical and impressive. However, it could have been more suitable if you had made
it some balance approach in other words, contrasting measures. This article is actually
telling the story against Russian armaments, looking from here as a villain, but where are
the American Facts?
Indeed, you should also discuss other side of the coin in order to convey a message before
everyone, or at least a novice.
Another one sided rubbish article from the American media. Crimea was part of Russia since
1783. In 1954 the President of the USSR gave it to the Ukraine to administer. The majority of
the Crimean population, who consider themselves Russian by the way, voted in a 2014
referendum to rejoin Russia.
The billions of dollars Russia spends on arms, around $90 billion, pales in comparison to
what America spend which is around $800 billion.
America is very good at bombing other countries that can't fight back, North Korea is not
like them, they can fight back and South Korea would suffer, the only solution is to
negotiate.
The funny thing is Russia is not ready for an offensive. By 2020, sure, possibly, but not
yet. In the mean time our bureaucrats and bungling Pentagon keep trying to acquire weapons
for the last war, not the next one.
The scariest part is that Russia has tested its robotic armored vehicles (small versions)
in real combat situations in Syria. While we argue about the best vendor for the same.
Whatever the Russians are doing today, the reality is that the USA had done it a long time
ago. The Russians are depicted as an enemy for political expedient because it suits the
profits of the oil and military industrial conglomerate.
Since it is the Americans that is actively pushing NATO forces to move into the former
USSR's satellite states in Eastern Europe it is only reasonable that American troops be
leading from the Russian fronts.
The US has ordered Russia
to close diplomatic offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington within the next two days,
in the latest round of punitive measures between the two countries that began at the end of last
year.
The secretary of state Rex Tillerson spoke to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in a phone
call on Thursday. Lavrov said Moscow "regrets an escalation of tension not initiated by Russia",
according to the
state-run RT news
channel . A senior US administration official said the call was "professional" and that Lavrov
"agreed to the sentiment that it was important to find a way to improve our relations".
No Russians will be expelled in this latest move, and US officials said staff at the offices affected
could be reassigned to other Russian diplomatic missions around the country. But they made it clear
that the buildings had to be vacated and would have to be sold or have their leases ended.
Three powerful groups have opposed the oligarchy: the group of insurgents Russia, the group
in US led by Mr. Trump, and finally, the group in China led by Mr. Xi. These three groups are
now trying to feel out the possibility of making a strategic alliance to overcome the decline.
Perhaps, each group would like to keep the old game rules on conditions favorable to it.
Since
there are no such conditions, they have to rise against the system. The key link in that revolt
against old rules is Russia. It was the first to see that something very muddy is happening and
it must be stopped.
Of course, there is no longer the Russia that won the Great Patriotic War.
However, present-day Russia is awakening; it has army, a nuclear missile shield.
All these
factors taken together can ensure a successful revolt. Russia announced revolt in 2013, when it
stopped the US Administration and did not let it destroy Syria. Since that moment, the
insurgent Russia is the prior target of the global oligarchy.
"... The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous. ..."
"... Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell. ..."
"... The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism. ..."
"... The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language. ..."
"... America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved. ..."
"... But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow. ..."
Since the German Marshall Fund of the United States unveiled its "Alliance For Securing
Democracy (AFSD)," I've resisted commenting, simply because the lobby group's "Hamilton 68
dashboard" is too preposterous to merit serious analysis.
It has rightly been ridiculed by journalists and activists who never tire of
knocking the Kremlin.
The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts
online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system,
via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results
seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet
another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond
ridiculous.
Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame
from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of
course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the
ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from
strained ties between Moscow and Washington.
To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia
blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head
Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by
neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell.
Convert zeal
The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the
Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's
taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an
inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism.
Berger tells us how his dashboard displays "the near-real-time output of Russian Influence
Operations on Twitter." Something he calls RIOT, for short. And he cites things like RT's
coverage of Vladimir Putin's recent pike fishing trip, a jaunt also prominently
featured in The New York Times,
The Daily Mail and The Sun, which incidentally described Putin as a "beefcake." Meaning,
either Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch are Russian agents, or this contention is just
farcical.
The lobbyist also frets over this network's widely-shared report on Oliver Stone's Facebook
post "condemning US sanctions against Russia and claiming US intelligence agencies are engaged
in a 'false flag' war against Russia." Which exposes a total lack of comprehension of how news
works. Because Stone is one of Hollywood's most famous figures and his name attached to a
perspective like this was bound to attract plenty of attention, regardless of the messenger.
It's also worth pointing out (for the really obtuse) that RT obviously doesn't control Stone's
Facebook and was merely bringing to a wider audience the American writer and director's
personal beliefs.
The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit
Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem
unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort.
Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't
understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in
the language.
Rock Bottom
Our hero descends further into hogwash when observing how "the most retweeted Russia Today
stories recorded by the dashboard involved scaremongering videos appearing to show refugees
swarming into Spain." But, two weeks ago, a boatful of migrants
did land on a Spanish tourist beach, near Cadiz, and quickly scattered to evade police
detection. And numerous outlets, including The
New York Times ,
The Guardian and the
BBC prominently reported the story. But apparently, it's only an issue when RT gives it
coverage.
But the garrulous quack isn't finished, asserting how RT "treads relatively carefully in
their flirtation with the far right, and they devote a significant amount of space to the far
left as well." Hardly news, given how the channel openly admits offering a platform for
alternative voices, regardless of their political compass. Incidentally, a mirror image of what
America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the
travails of nationalist
politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This
is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the
Russians" are involved.
Berger does concede one salient point: "it is important to note here again that we are not
asserting Russia is responsible for creating or shaping this content," he writes. Which
suggests he fully understands how his project is geared to smear anybody who opposes US policy
as working for Moscow's interests.
Yellow press
But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths
when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it
also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real
world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article
on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady
involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe
philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't
even hold down a job in Moscow.
The fact Berger has to descend to such irrelevant tittle-tattle to score a few points tells
us all we need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance For Securing Democracy. This
is pathetic, miserable and feeble stuff and the German Marshall Fund of the United States
should be ashamed of themselves for financing this sort of muck.
"... At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income. ..."
"... NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake? ..."
Total amount of capital that private Russian citizens have taken offshore exceeds one
trillion dollars (trillion dollars = 1,000 billion dollars):
https://lenta.ru/news/2017/08/23/offshore/
This is three times more than the level of Russia's foreign exchange reserves.
Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like this. Take this kind of money out of Finland
and we would have nothing.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
August 2017
In the lenta.ru article the following is pointed out:
В настоящее
время перекос в
распределении
доходов в
России
находится на
уровне США -- 1
процент
граждан
получают 20-25
процентов всех
доходов в
стране.
Currently, the imbalance in income distribution in Russia is at the level of the USA: 1
percent of the population receives 20-25 percent of all income in the country.
Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like that in the USA!
More so than Russia. Stealing this kind of wealth and taking it offshore would not be
possible here. And Finnish elite is a tad more patriotic than Russian.
Well, where exactly do these Russians invest their money? Do you know if the countries that
receive this money are known tax havens? Is all or most of the money going into family trust
funds or going into accounts based in countries where taxation of income or profit is known
to be lower than in Russia?
Also you can't assume that because these people are sending the money out of Russia, that
it was all stolen. For all you know, they could be sending the money out because they are not
confident that Russian financial markets are stable enough or that the Central Bank is
pursuing policies that would allow them to invest in enterprises or funds in Russia.
Khotin owns stock in various companies within and outside Russia either directly or
indirectly through other companies. If he has a stake in Kuwait Energy, is that evidence of
guilt on his part? Where did the money come from, that he could buy shares in an energy
company? Who says that Russian individuals and companies may not invest their after-tax
profits in companies outside Russia?
Look at this billionaire's Wikipedia entry – aaargh, this David Iakobashvili fellow
invests money stolen I mean, earned in Russia in philanthropic causes in Georgia!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Iakobashvili
At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow
multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands
and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to
prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income.
NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing
profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake?
Now for China's "dream of empire" to work, China would need to convince two important
countries, and maybe three, to at least become "neutral", instead of quasi-hostile, for these
new communications lines to work. Those two countries are Russia and Germany. The 3rd is Saudi
Arabia, which has an interesting hand to play.
1. Russia
Russia is the main land bridge between China and Europe. So logic says that the US should be
very nice to Russia and seek to establish some kind of military alliance, if only to control
the movement of people and goods between China and Europe, and from Europe to China. However,
in its immense wisdom, the US Senate and the entire US diplomatic corps have decided that
America's interests are best served by imposing sanctions on Russia for crimes!not even proven
at the time of writing!that the Central Intelligence Agency routinely commits inside countries
that are nominally allies of the US!
It seems that US policymakers have forgotten Lord Palmerston's dictum that nations don't
have friends, just permanent interests. And instead of following policies to maximize its
national interest, the US would rather cut off its nose to spite its face. The end result is
that the US seems to be working as hard as possible to make Russia join forces with China. But
why would the US so consciously make an enemy out of Russia?
A starting point is that it is a little odd that a country that cannot conceivably be
invaded spends more on defense then the next ten nations combined (see chart overleaf). It is
also odd that the US has been involved in wars, somewhere around the globe, with very few
interruptions, ever since President Dwight Eisenhower warned his countrymen about the growing
clout of the "US military industrial complex".
Of course, we fully realize that even mentioning the "US military industrial complex' makes
one sound like some kind of tin-potted, conspiracy-theorist prone loon. This is not our
intention. But we do want to highlight that, in order to justify a budget of US$622bn, soon
heading to US$800bn, the US military industrial complex needs a bogey-man
Now the natural bogey-man should logically be China. After all, China is now sporting the
second biggest military budget in the world (US$192bn in 2016), is rapidly expanding its global
presence (Belt and Road, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Silk Road Fund) and increasingly
treats the South China Sea as a mare nostrum. Still, the past few months of broad US hysteria
toward Russia make it fairly clear that US military interests would rather pick on Russia then
China. Why so? The first, and most obvious explanation, is simply institutional inertia. After
all, Russia was the main enemy between 1945 and 1991 and entire institutions were built (NATO,
OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) with either the stated, or unstated,
goal of containing Russia's influence. Such government-led institutions usually turn around as
easily as a cruise ship captained by Francesco Schettino.
...As no-one in the US business community cares deeply about Russia, Moscow makes for a
good, "compromise bogey man"?
A third explanation is tied to a theme we have discussed in the past (see
The Consequences
of Trump's Syrian Strike
), namely the unfolding civil war in the Middle-East between
Sunnis and Shias. On the Sunni side of the war sits Saudi Arabia. On the Shia side of the war
is Iran. And behind Iran stands Russia, who would like nothing more than to see the Saudi
regime implode. Indeed, a collapse of the House of Saud would be an immense boon for Russia.
The price of oil would likely surge (which would be great for non-Arab producers like Russia)
and Europe would find itself wholly dependent on Russia for its energy supplies, thereby giving
Moscow more geopolitical clout than it has enjoyed in decades.
At the same time, a collapse of the House of Saud would be terrible news for US, French and
British arms suppliers (for whom the Middle-Eastern monarchies are big clients) and for all big
oil companies which have huge contracts in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle-East to
protect.
This brings us to the current make-up of the US administration which, to say the least, is
somewhat skewed towards military officers (military men and the merchants of death tend to get
along) and oil-men. Is it too much of a stretch to think that an administration loaded with oil
and military men would, almost by default, fight Saudi Arabia's corner? Now this may be unfair.
After all, it's not as if the first trip of the current US president was to Saudi Arabia, or as
if that trip yielded many lucrative deals for US weapons manufacturers, US oil companies, and
US financiers, was it?
Russia as a game-changer
Whatever the reason for the current anti-Russia hysteria in the US, it is now clearly in
Russia's interest for it to play a very active role in the coming Chinese efforts to reduce the
power of the dominant "maritime empire". This means that Chinese and European products will be
able to travel through Russia for the foreseeable future, so avoiding possible threats created
by the US navy should Washington ever act to disrupt trade between the two economic
centers.
The reason that the US's approach to Russia is so short-sighted is that Russia's role in the
coming clash between the two empires may go far beyond it facilitating communication and
transport across its territory. Indeed, Russia (along with Qatar and Iran) could already be
helping China break the monopoly that the US has on the payment of energy all over the world
through the US dollar (see
The Most
Important Change And Its Natural Hedge
).
For the past 100 years, the US dollar has been the world's major reserve and trading
currency. Needless to say, having the ability to settle one's (rather large) trade and budget
deficits in one's own currency is a competitive advantage of huge proportions. Greater than its
edge in finance, tertiary education, technology, biotech, weapons manufacturing and
agricultural productivity, this "exorbitant privilege" may be the US's single biggest
comparative advantage.
Now our starting point when looking at China is that the guys who run the show in Beijing
are basically control freaks. After all, what else do you expect from career technocrats
steeped in Marxist theory? So with that in mind, the question every investor should ask
themselves is: why would control freaks yield control of their country's exchange rate and
interest rate structure? Why liberalize the bond and currency markets?
For let's face it, there are few prices as important to an economy as the exchange rate and
the interest rate. So if the politburo is willing to gradually lose control over them, it must
be because it hopes to gain something better on the other side. And the something better is to
transform the renminbi into Asia's deutschemark; the "natural" trading (and eventually reserve)
currency for Asia and even wider emerging markets. In fact, internationalizing the renminbi is
the lynchpin on which the whole "Belt and Road" empire rollout rests. If this part fails, then
China's imperial ambitions will most likely crumble over time (for one cannot have an empire on
somebody else's dime).
The rise of the renminbi
Which brings us to a key change in our global monetary system that has received scant
attention, namely, the recent announcement by the Hong Kong exchange that investors will soon
be able to buy and settle gold contracts in renminbi (see release). This initiative has the
potential to be a game-changer for the architecture of our global monetary system.
Imagine being Russia, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Sudan, Uzbekistan or any other country liable
to fall foul of US foreign policy, and thus susceptible to having Washington use the dollar as
a "soft weapon" (see
BNP, Big Brother And The US
Dollar
). Then China comes along and says: "Rather than trading in dollars, which leaves us
both exposed to US sanctions, and US banks' willingness to fund our trade, let's deal in
renminbi. I can guarantee that ICBC will never pull the rug from under your feet ".
If you are Russia, or Qatar ( which have already signed renminbi deals for oil and natural
gas) , this may be an interesting proposition. However, the question will quickly arise: "What
will I do with my renminbi? Sure, I can buy goods in China, but I only need so much cheap
clothing, tennis shoes, and plastic junk. What do I do with what is left over?". And the answer
to that question is that the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency since the US offers
the deepest and most liquid asset markets. From real estate (as shown by the Russia-Trump
investigation), to equities, to bonds, there is no shortage of US assets that Americans will
sell foreigners so that foreigners can park their hard earned dollars back into the US.
This brings us back to China and the main constraint to the renminbi's rise as a reserve
currency. Simply put, foreign investors do not trust the Chinese government enough to park
their excess reserves in Chinese assets. This lack of trust was crystallized by the decision in
the summer of 2015 to "shut down" the equity markets for a while and stop trading in any stock
that looked like it was heading south. That decision confirmed foreign investors' apprehension
about China and in their eyes set back renminbi internationalization by several years, if not
decades.
Until now, that is. For by creating a gold contract settled in renminbi, Russia may now sell
oil to China for renminbi (already signed), then take whatever excess currency it earns to buy
gold in Hong Kong. As a result, Russia does not have to buy Chinese assets or switch the
proceeds into dollars (and so potentially fall under the thumb of the US Treasury). This new
arrangement is good news for Russia, good news for China, good news for gold and horrible news
for Saudi Arabia as it leaves the Middle-Eastern kingdom in between a rock and a hard
place.
2. Saudi Arabia
The fact that China wants to buy oil with its own currency will increasingly present Saudi
Arabia with a dilemma . It could acknowledge that China is now the world's largest oil
importer, and only major growth market, and accept renminbi payments for its oil. However, this
would go down like a lead balloon in Washington where the US Treasury would (rightly) see this
as a threat to the dollar's hegemony . In such a scenario, it is unlikely that the US would
continue to approve modern weapon sales to Saudi and the embedded "protection" of the House of
Saud that comes with them. And without this US protection, who knows which way the Sunni-Shia
civil war may tip (most likely in favor of the Iran-Russia axis).
Unfortunately for Saudi Arabia, the alternative is hardly attractive. Getting boxed out of
the Chinese market will increasingly mean having to dump excess oil inventories on the global
stage, thereby ensuring a sustained low price for oil. But with its budget deficit stuck at
about 16% of GDP, with half its population below 27 and needing jobs, and with reserves
shrinking by around US$10bn a month, just maintaining the current status quo is not a long-term
viable option.
So which way will Saudi turn? Will Riyadh accept low oil prices forever and the associated
costs on Saudi society? Or will it change horse and move to accept renminbi in order to ensure
more access to the world's largest oil importer, even at the risk of triggering Washington's
wrath? Investors who like to bet on form may wish to consider the second option. Indeed, King
Ibn Saud (the current King Salman's father) was once a loyal British client as the Brits had
helped suppress the Wahhabi brotherhood, so cementing his power. Yet in 1936, Ibn Saud's
adviser Abdullah Philby (father of British traitor Kim Philby), persuaded the king to switch
his allegiance to the US, by offering Saudis exclusive oil concession to Chevron/Texaco rather
than BP. This is why the Saudi oil company is called Aramco (the Arab-American oil company)
rather than Arbroco.
Could the House of Saud pull off the same stunt again? One indication may be who lines up as
cornerstone investors in the coming Aramco IPO. If those end up as China Investment
Corporation, Petrochina and the PRC's State Administration of Foreign Exchange, than perhaps
Aramco will be on its way to becoming Archoco. And with that, the pricing of Saudi oil could
shift from US dollars to renminbi.
Incidentally, such a move would likely solve Saudi's biggest macro hurdle; specifically, the
defense of the Saudi Riyal peg to the US dollar. Indeed, with reserves shrinking so rapidly,
the arrangement looks to be on a slow-moving death watch (admittedly, at the current pace of
reserve depletion, Riyadh could hold out three years and possibly five). But should Saudi
announce that Aramco (or Archoco!) will now accept renminbi for oil payments, the dollar would
likely tank while oil prices would shoot up (as Saudi would have a willing buyer for its oil in
China). A lower US dollar/ higher oil combination would, needless to say, make the Saudi peg
that much easier to sustain.
Lastly, if you were King Salman and thought that the long-term sustainability of the House
of Saud depended on dumping the US and engaging China, what would you be doing right now? Would
you be buying as many top-end US weapons as you possibly could, knowing that, in the future,
such purchases may no longer be as easy as they are today? But let us now move to the third
major player in this many-part drama, namely Germany, where the situation is even more
complex.
3. Germany
Unencumbered by its own "heavy" history, Germany! being at heart a "continental"
nation!would probably have joined the "continental alliance" and left the maritime alliance
(which may explain why the "maritime alliance" tapped Angela Merkel's phone; arguably a greater
intrusion then anything the US has accused Russia of). After all, consider the advantages for
Germany of joining the "land-based empire":
Politically, Germany could finally develop its own diplomacy and stop taking orders from
Washington.
Economically, German industry would have unlimited access to develop not only Russia but
also all the populations north of the Himalayas set to join the modern world through the
creation of the "New Silk Road".
Geopolitically, let us first state the obvious: a Middle-East ruled by the Sunnis under
the control of the US diplomacy has not been a resounding success. Worse yet, the incredible
mistakes made by the last two US administrations across the Middle-East have led to a very
old religious war (Sunnis vs. Shiites) again erupting. As we write, it seems that the
Russians and Iranian allies are gradually succeeding in taking the control of the Middle
East. Now the return to some form of peace (under a Russia/Iranian yoke) would offer new
markets for German industry, provided Germany immediately allied itself with Russia and broke
away from the American sanctions imposed by the US Senate. Failing that, Germany could lose a
Middle-Eastern market which has historically been important for its exporters.
Domestically: A German-Russian alliance would crimp Turkey's resurgence as Ankara would
find itself isolated due to Iran and China being on its eastern borders and Russia on its
northern frontiers. As a result, Turkey would most likely stop rattling Europe's cage, which
would be a boon for Merkel as Recep Tayyip Erdo?an has been a significant thorn in her side.
In other words, Merkel would outsource her "Turkey problem" to Russia.
Energetically, a Russian-dominated Middle East would still provide gas from Russia and
oil from the Middle-East. The implication is that Germany would no longer need to have its
energy imports "protected" by the maritime empire's fleet (Merkel's short-sightedness on the
energy front, from the end of coal, to the banning of nuclear power, has fitted in the
category of being "worse than a crime, it is a mistake").
Many people in Germany!business people and public servants such as ex -chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder!understand the above and have lobbied for such an outcome. The recent
trend of US prosecutors trying to export the supremacy of the US legal system over local
ones, and imposing egregious fines on all and sundry (Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen) can only
push German business leaders further down that path.
Of course, as Frenchmen, we know that nothing good comes of:
Germany and Russia getting along like a house on fire.
Britain retreating back to its island.
And we would suggest that President Emmanuel Macron is also keenly aware of this. Which
explains he is so far the only Western leader to have gone out of his way to be nice to
President Trump; aside from the Polish President of course (more on that later).
Macron has bent over to accommodate Merkel. And let's face it, his task is not easy. For
as good as our president may be with the older ladies, he needs to convince Merkel to walk
away from the above win-win and keep Germany committed to the greater European integration
exercise, and Germany wedded to its role inside the broader "maritime empire".
Germany as the sole paymaster
Now, to be fair, the German population has enthusiastically supported the European
integration project, partly out of historical guilt (now abating as the share of the
population alive in World War II fast shrinks) and partly because it has been a boon to
German exporters. However, recent years have highlighted that the low hanging fruit of
European integration has been harvested. And to stay afloat, the European project now needs
Berlin to transfer 2%-6% of GDP to poorer, less productive, European Union countries
(especially as the UK will soon stop paying into EU coffers). This is a hard sell, even for
a politician as gifted as Macron. Soon, Germany may be the only meaningful contributor to
French agricultural subsidies; and that is unlikely to go down well with the average
Bavarian housewife.
Which brings us to the only other Western leader who has publicly embraced the current
incumbent of the White House, namely Polish president, Andreszj Duda. After all, History
suggests that France should not be the only country worried about a German rapprochement
with the new "land-based empire". Most Eastern European countries, in particular Poland,
have similar reactions to such a hook-up. In fact, threat of a German-Russian rapprochement
may already be creating the birth of a new, Austro-Hungarian empire, aka the Visegrad Group
alliance of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
Historically, the role of the Austrian empire was to protect Europe from the Turks and
also to stop an alliance between Prussia and Russia. For the time being the Visegrad group
is negotiating (rather unsuccessfully) with Berlin about how to handle thousands of "Turks"
(at least migrants entering Europe through Turkey, whether those migrants come from North
Africa, the Middle-East, Afghanistan, Bangladesh or elsewhere is almost irrelevant). This
Eastern grouping may have to address, sooner than they think, a German-Russian
rapprochement.
Just as importantly, the re-emergence of the Austrian empire is incompatible with the
"Europe as a Nation" project. In the world we are describing Poland, followed by Hungary
and the Czech Republic, may be the next countries to leave the EU. Although in so doing,
the Visegrad Group would almost guarantee the feared rapprochement between Germany and
Russia. Of course the Eastern European nations would only make such a move if they were
militarily guaranteed by the US. And, by an amazing coincidence, this is exactly the
promise that President Trump just delivered in Warsaw!
For the "maritime empire", a loss of Germany would have to be rapidly compensated by an
increased presence in Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Lithuania and almost every
country East of Berlin and West of Moscow. Of course, this is what France and England (the
"maritime empires of the day") did in the 1930s! with limited success .
Conclusion
History shows that maritime powers almost always have the upper hand in any clash; if
only because moving goods by sea is cheaper, more efficient, easier to control, and often
faster, than moving them by land. So there is little doubt that the US continues to have
the advantage. Simple logic, suggests that goods should continue to be moved from Shanghai
to Rotterdam by ship, rather than by rail.
Unless, of course, a rising continental power wants to avoid the sea lanes controlled by
its rival. Such a rival would have little choice but developing land routes; which of
course is what China is doing. The fact that these land routes may not be as efficient as
the US controlled sealanes is almost as irrelevant as the constant cost over-run of any
major US defense projects. Both are necessary to achieve imperial status.
As British historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson highlighted in his mustread East And
West, empires tend to expand naturally, not out of megalomania, but simple commercial
interest: "The true explanation lies in the very nature of the trade route. Having gone to
all expenses involved the rule cannot be expected to leave the far terminus in the hands of
another power." And indeed, the power that controls the end points on the trading road, and
the power that controls the road, is the power that makes the money. Clearly, this is what
China is trying to achieve, but trying to do so without entering into open conflict with
the United States; perhaps because China knows the poor track record of continental empires
picking fights with the maritime power
Still, by focusing almost myopically on Russia, the US risks having its current massive
head-start gradually eroded. And obvious signs of this erosion may occur in the coming
years if and when the following happens:
Saudi Arabia adopts the renminbi for oil payments
Germany changes its stripes and cozies up to Russia and pretty much gives up on the whole
European integration charade in order to follow its own naked self-interest.
The latter two events may, of course, not happen. Still, a few years ago, we would have
dismissed such talk as not even worthy of the craziest of conspiracy theories. Today,
however, we are a lot less sure. And our concern is that either of the above events could
end up having a dramatic impact on a number of asset classes and portfolios.
And the possible catalyst for these changes is China's effort to create a renminbi-based
gold market in Hong Kong. For while the key change to our global financial infrastructure
(namely oil payments occurring in renminbi) has yet to fully arrive, the ability to
transform renminbi into gold, without having to bring the currency back into China
(assuming Hong Kong is not "really" part of China as it has its own supreme court and
independent justice system just about!) is a likely game-changer.
Clearly, China is erecting the financial architecture for the above to occur. This does
not mean the initiative will be a success. China could easily be sitting on a dud. But
still, we should give credit to Beijing's policymakers for their sense of timing for has
there ever been a better time to promote an alternative to the US dollar? If you are
sitting in Russia, Qatar, Iran, or Venezuela and listening to the rhetoric coming out of
Washington, would you feel that comfortable keeping your assets, and denominating your
trade, in dollars? Or would you perhaps be looking for alternatives?
This is what makes today's US policy hard to understand. Just when China is starting to
offer an alternative!an alternative that the US should be trying to bury!the US is moving
to "weaponize" the dollar and pound other nations!even those as geo-strategically vital as
Russia!for simple domestic political reasons. It all seems so short-sighted
I've got a different suggestion for the US Empire, rather than attempt to suppress
rising competition, take the words of Eddie Morra in the Bradley Cooper movie Limitless
to heart: "There are no safeguards on human nature. We're wired to overreach. Look at
history, all the countries that ever ruled the world. Portugal with this big, massive
navy. All they got now are salt cod and cheap condos. The Brits. Now they're just sitting
on their dank, little island fussing over their suits. No one's stopping and thinking,
hey, we're doing pretty well. We got France. We've got Poland. We've got big, Swiss bank
accounts. You know what? Let's not invade Russia in the winter. Let's go home. Let's pop
a beer. And, let's live off the interest."
agree on pile of shit. so many if this then thats, I am head spinning. moar like
predictiing the weather.
but to wish/think merica will cease eurasia vital interests agression is moar hogwash.
see, this is what empires do until they make that fatal mistake of over extending
themselves into the hand of conflict and loose.
and trillions later and the mideast in turmoil serves as a prime example the beginning
of failure. but to think the deep state/MIC is going to roll back operations is to think
mcstain lindsey types are going away, just plain dellusional.
jim, you are ignorant of the gorilla in the budget, 600+ billion and growing! some say
near 1 trillion counting all inclusive costs-va ect.
there will be the opposite of your wish think realize-moar expansion and bases...
Russia has some of the best computer programmers in the world. Their rocket engines
and missiles are the best in the world too. Jet fighters may be the best as well because
the F-35 is garbage and the F-22 was killed and has it's own problems.
Finally, Russia has the largest gold reserves in the world and also other natural
resources. As long as Putin is around, Russia will be fine.
When wealth is in an endless supply of commodities demographics are not as important,
Canada and Australia for examples. i don't think Russia is losing population anymore,
anyway. russia is the game changer. they are the eurasian link. the side that gets russia
gets the world. If both Germany and china get Russia the usa is finished economically and
politically on the world stage. That much is obvious. a lot of the rest of what these
guys are saying is just geopolitical speculation based upon historic European
geopolitical behavior.
My response to that is the Eurozone would have been considered impossible just a few
years ago. a united Eurozone allied with Russia and China in a multipolar world suits
everyone and provides an economic and political check and balance on violence on both
continents leaving the USA harmless in the middle of the oceans.
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again
urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary
James Mattis arrives in the
country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.
"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance
it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful
Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.
The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia
separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced
a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.
With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with
regard to Ukraine."
The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful
resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."
"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should
only expect more violence and more death," he said.
Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.
The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual
defense policy bill. But former President
Barack Obama chose instead
to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.
During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S.
remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to
The Associated
Press .
Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and
Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election
and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier
this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed
the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.
THE NEW NWO AND RUSSIA.
This is very much worth reading
. The authors argue that in the coming (well, already here)
rivalry between the American maritime power and the Chinese land power, Russia is the swing
player that can hand victory to one or the other: "So logic says that the US should be very
nice to Russia and seek to establish some kind of military alliance". Well, logic's voice isn't
loud enough for the US Congress to hear. Also interesting is their discussion of Germany's
choices and the important role Saudi Arabia could play if it changes protectors again. (
I too
wondered this two years ago.
USSR DEBT. With a payment to Bosnia, Moscow
has paid off the last of the debt it
inherited from the USSR
. When an earlier agreement that the 15 would divide the debt fell
apart, Moscow took responsibility for all of it in return for USSR assets abroad. It did this
despite the fact that its creditors insisted on repayment while many of its debtors could not
pay. The total was about USD80 billion and many debts to it were forgiven. I well remember how
glad we all were that it took responsibility for the debts as well as the other leftovers:
weaponry outside, nuclear weapons and its guarantee of Russian citizenship to any Soviet
citizen who wasn't automatically given citizenship where he lived. It was only later that the
last three were rebranded as evidence of imperialistic intentions.
DEMOGRAPHICS. There has been a
small net decline in
Russia's population
this year after several years of growth. We will see if this is a bump
or a trend. (Although Karlin, who is much more knowledgeable than I, predicted a return to
"normal" rates
two and a half years
ago
.)
VISA RETALIATION.
My take
: I believe
Moscow is ready to follow Washington right down to zero representation is that's where it goes.
But, if the Russiagate bubble bursts (probably the most severe blow is
the exposure of the Guccifer 2.0 fake by VIPS
) then the
original
pretext
will burst too and things can get back to normal.
MAKING WATER RUN UP HILL. Lithuania is getting
LNG from the
USA
and
Ukraine coal from
the USA
. More expensive but supposedly for security. Well, whatever: if they want to pay
more, let them. Of course in all likelihood they will "pay" with IMF or EU loans. Payback's a
problem for later.
"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release
includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the
U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were
stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention
that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber
connection to the Clinton meltdown.
"... the usa needs to copyright this : ''sanctions-r-us''.... they will sell this as the good cop routine that plays to the wacky right wing nut jobs that drive us foreign policy.. it wears thin quickly though for anyone looking under the hood - something the western msm is loath or unable to do.. keeping the populace ignorant is the cause de jour for them.. some things don't change... show down in the o k corral is on it's way... ..."
"... Honestly, anyone who doesn't understand that making deals and treaties with the US is pointless when not dangerous because they will never respect them is hopeless and has lost any pretense at sanity. I've yet to see any single treaty in their whole history that the US hasn't broken at some point. Though I also have to point out that it's not merely that "Americans are treacherous and have a forked tongue" or whatever. It's hardcoded in the political system itself, which is highly unstable and at the same time doesn't punish inconsistency, stupidity and betrayal. ..."
"... China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. How can anyone side with a country that is on the other side of the world against one that is right next to you? The only thing I can think of is a ploy by China to further cause the US to economically hurt itself. So many things are going on that it's hard to keep track of what's what. ..."
The U.S. Can Not Be Trusted - Case XXXIV: Trump Cheats On
China Sanction Deal
During the ramp up to new UN sanctions on North Korea the Trump administration threaten to
sanction China if it would not commit to further pressure. Trade measures against China were
held
back
while the discussions about the resolution were ongoing:
An opportunity to hit North Korea with new United Nations sanctions has sidelined President
Donald Trump's bid to punish China for its alleged unfair trade practice.
...
[O]n Thursday afternoon, senior administration aides postponed the announcement [of trade
measures against China] at the urging of United Nations and State Department officials, who
are in the sensitive final stages of convincing China to sign on to a U.N. resolution that
would impose new sanctions on North Korea. U.N. and State Department officials warned that
the trade announcement could kill their chances of winning Beijing's buy-in , according to
the officials.
Trump himself
implied
that
he was willing to go for a quit pro quo:
While past presidents have tried at least ostensibly to keep security and economic issues on
separate tracks in their dealings with China, Mr. Trump has explicitly linked the two,
suggesting he would back off from a trade war against Beijing if it does more to pressure
North Korea. "If China helps us, I feel a lot differently toward trade, a lot differently
toward trade," he told reporters...
A deal was made and the UN Resolution 2371 passed. China immediately
implemented
the relevant measures:
In an unprecedented move against North Korea, China on Monday issued an order to carry out
the United Nations sanctions imposed on the rogue regime earlier this month.
China did its part of the deal. It helped pass the UN resolution against North Korea and it
immediately implemented it even while that causes a significant loss for Chinese companies
which trade with North Korea.
Now Trump is back at
sanctioning
Chinese (and Russian) companies:
The Trump administration on Tuesday imposed sanctions on 16 mainly Chinese and Russian
companies and people for assisting North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and
helping the North make money to support those programs.
...
Among those sanctioned are six Chinese companies, including three coal companies ; two
Singapore-based companies that sell oil to North Korea and three Russians that work with
them; a Russian company that deals in North Korean metals and its Russian director; a
construction company based in Namibia; a second Namibia-based company, and its North Korean
director, that supplies North Korean workers to build statues overseas to generate income for
the North.
These are "secondary sanctions" which block financial transactions and make it nearly
impossible for those companies and people to run an international business. Moreover - China
had already
banned
all
coal imports from North Korea. It had sent back North Korean coal ships and instead
bought coal
from the United States. Now Chinese companies get sanctioned over North Korean
coal they no longer buy? Furthermore selling fuel oil to North Korea is explicitly allowed
under the new UN sanctions. There is no reason to sanction any company over it.
JUST IN: China urges U.S. to 'immediately correct its mistake' of sanctioning Chinese
firms over North Korea - embassy spokesman
If the Trump administration insist of holding up these sanction China and Russia will
obviously become negligent in controlling the sanctions imposed on North Korea. Why should they
hold to their side of the deal, at great costs, when the U.S. does not hold up its side?
They will also stop at making any further deals with the Trump administration. It has now
proven to be just as lying and cheating as the Obama administration has been. The U.S. can
forget about ANY further action or sanctions at the UN.
This as extremely shortsighted and stupid way of handling international relations.
How does the U.S. hope to win anything in the long run when it behaves in such untrustworthy
ways?
Bannon's sayonara
interview
with Robert Kuttner was
all about the coming trade war with China. Bannon thinks it is the key to electoral success.
It will be interesting to see if his strategy lives on now that he is gone.
thanks b....
the usa needs to copyright this : ''sanctions-r-us''.... they will sell this
as the good cop routine that plays to the wacky right wing nut jobs that drive us foreign
policy.. it wears thin quickly though for anyone looking under the hood - something the
western msm is loath or unable to do.. keeping the populace ignorant is the cause de jour for
them.. some things don't change... show down in the o k corral is on it's way...
Honestly, anyone who doesn't understand that making deals and treaties with the US is
pointless when not dangerous because they will never respect them is hopeless and has lost
any pretense at sanity. I've yet to see any single treaty in their whole history that the US
hasn't broken at some point. Though I also have to point out that it's not merely that
"Americans are treacherous and have a forked tongue" or whatever. It's hardcoded in the
political system itself, which is highly unstable and at the same time doesn't punish
inconsistency, stupidity and betrayal.
Gee, you mean the U$A doesn't want to live up to its words? Well, I'm shocked.. Not! Actions,
not meeting rhetoric, is the U$A's stock in trade, in all its endeavors.
I see Trump rolled out his new infrastructure plan. Destroying other nation's
infrastructure, to create more jobs in the weapons industry here at home.
@1
Bannon August 16..."To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we
have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I
think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able
to recover."
Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against
Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and
follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on
these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing
us."
Reuters August 21... China expressed "strong dissatisfaction" on Monday with the U.S.
launch of an investigation into China's alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, calling
it "irresponsible".
Because he is a bit dim-witted like Dubya, Trump has a way of going off script and putting
his foot in his mouth. The PTB knew all along they were going to fck China - with or without
the UN Korean sanctions agreement.
This would be one reason why AIPAC doesn't want Trump. That other moron, Pence, would be
capable of reading his lines without the need for extemporaneous commentary.
When China starts turning down US dollars and Treasuries in exchange for all Chinese
services and goods produced by the industries we offshored to them (only accepting RMB and
gold today, thank you), we will see how this all works out.
Probably the neocon "solution" will be military (isn't it always?), but as they say, "Good
luck with that!" The recent rash of US naval "accidental collisions" provides a hint of
things to come.
It looks even worse for China.
NK might be the epicenter of the realization that China is just as self-serving as any
other country, but the ripples will have damaged China's reputation far and wide. By not enforcing the UNSC sanctions China will only prove her vote was not based on
principle.
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. How can
anyone side with a country that is on the other side of the world against one that is right
next to you? The only thing I can think of is a ploy by China to further cause the US to
economically hurt itself. So many things are going on that it's hard to keep track of what's
what.
Isn't it obvious that any form of sanctions, "cheating" etc. by the US is the best thing for
the rest of the world? Unfortunately, the "elites" in Russia, and many people in China are
only too eager to lick the feet of the US. Good old fashioned corruption via trade would
surely destroy (likely) Russia and China -- but, as a god-given present, the US actually
behaves as the benevolent exceptional nation, really, by teaching Russia and China the
necessary lessons!
Perhaps Trump is really a deep genius? Or perhaps in 50 years we will learn that ACTUALLY Putin did it! He really controls the
whole West, and makes it destroy itself. :-))
That's great news and hopefully NC had to pay the same great price the Ukraine got or maybe
the Ukraine will trade with NC for more rocket motors. Greed Amerikas bottom line and I wonder what the trumpster cut was?
I doubt any other state actors still trust the US, regardless of what administration is in
power. Power when wielded is always a blunt instrument, and as long as the US policy elite
see no equal on the world stage, thanks to the US' sprawling military and extensive economic
advantages (reserve currency, resource wealth, etc), they don't need to nor will play
nice.
Well in a way this serves China right, the price they pay for a treacherous act of betrayal
against NK and instead thinking they can do a deal the devil.
Now perhaps the Chinese will "get their logic right"
"These are "secondary sanctions" which block financial transactions and make it nearly
impossible for those companies and people to run an international business..."
I have often wondered how any nation can have such power - and continually wield it so
unwisely as the United States has
apparently there's no real appeal to the use of the such sanctions (please correct me if I
am wrong) so that in essence it is a world-wide dictatorial economic power exercised by one
nation over all the others, and without legal recourse, the very definition of
tyranny.....and even if there were current judicial recourse, the US would have corrupted
that totally as well.
The Chinese and the Russian have been pretty foolish the last 10-15 years or so in
trusting the US at all. the perfect case was the UN resolution on Libya which the West used
to slaughter the whole country and create a failed state. at least Putin learned his lesson
early on in Syria and took effective counter-measures, finally putting his foot down on this
also world-wide regime change bullshit, which has really paid off since Nov 2015....
Question is why they were so gullible to believe US in the first place after repeated
betrayal in the past.
Are they retarded? Were they really ready to strangle NK economy in a face of blatant US
belligerence and provocations knowing well that only NK nukes may bring Japan and US to the
peace table to end WWII and Korean War?
Is in the national interest of China and Russia collapse of NK. OF COURSE NOT.
So why all those stupid maneuvers? Do they not see that US incoherence is aimed for dividing Sino-Russian alliance? Somobody have to say it if b is not saying that, fool me once, but if you fool me twice I
become a fool. Are Russians and Chinese fools believing that US are something else than bunch of
delusional psychotics one cannot reason with or bargain with?
Is that because they are rich delusional psychotics and pay is good?
"The U.S. can forget about ANY further action or sanctions at the UN."
I really, really hope so, B. I can't understand why China agreed to the U.N. resolution in
the first place. The outcome was crystal clear from the beginning, we had it before times and
again. Are the Russian and the Chinese governments to stupid to learn from experiences? Or
just to gutless to 'just say no'? Or to eager to hold the neoliberal economic system afloat,
they obviously immagine as the only way possible? I wonder.
I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Chinese. They have been playing us re North Korea -
North Korea starts pulling crazy shit at just the right moments, China offers to 'help'.
There won't be any huge trade wars either - it is in their interest just as much as ours to
avoid it and they're businessmen, first and foremost.
Chinese casualties in the Korean war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties
Western sources estimate the PVA suffered about 400,000 killed and 486,000 wounded,
Data from official Chinese sources, on the other hand, reported that the Chinese PVA had
suffered 114,000 battle deaths, 34,000 non-battle deaths, 340,000 wounded, 7,600 missing
Either way, China shed a lot of blood for NK. The latest UN sanctions were harmless
bullshit to buy a bit of time. China and Russia made a joint statement that they would not
see North Korea economicaly strangled. Any NK losses would be made up in other ways.
Throughout all of history, I can't recall any nation as dishonest as the USA. In a Just
World, it would be shunned, ostracized and be made to sit is the equivalent of a corner for a
millennia-long time-out. But since it has a UNSC veto, it really can't be made to behave
within the family of nations. The only way forward I can see is for the planet's people to
push every vestige of the Outlaw US Empire out of their nations and declare it persona non
grata until it's proven for at least a century that it's changed its ways. And don't go to
visit it despite the scenery of its landscape; there're plenty of other outstanding places
having natural beauty on the planet to visit. And don't use any of its tech products, like
Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. In other words, Boycott everything USA--
Everything!
And
don't give its Trolls the time of day.
There is a bottom line - ww3 - the Russians and Chinese know what this means . They are
terrified as Stalin was of the 'West ' in 1941. Under such pressure things must always be
'Alice and Wonderlandish' . Events of the moment are to be seen in this equivocal light.
Specifically, the United States and South Korea 'start' a (yearly) variation of military
exercises, North Korea responds by 'threatening' missile tests (secretly offering a mutual
'freeze' of exercises and tests), and China offers to sponsor (yearly) peace conferences.
The State Dept, TSA, DHS et al. treats individual American citizens with the same utter
contempt and scorn...that Washington has for NK, China and Russia (unless said American
citizen is connected to a certain lobby / special group or status.)
2.
In light of how the US government has not upheld treaties it signed with First Nations
people for 300 years, or any other organization or government that was weaker than itself at
any time, it bewilders me how any modern government could expect the US to honor any treaty
it signs today, unless upholding said treaty were in the immediate interest of the US.
3.
How utterly stupid is the regime in Washington?...it seems to gyrate madly, imposing
sanctions here, sanctions there, threatening everybody from NK to Syria to Venezuela to China
to Russia, when it should be minding its own fucking business. We need a constitutional
convention in the US and we need to restore democratic governance to the USA.
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said
'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the
land". Desmond Tutu and Jomo Kenyatta
"
"The Ukraine crisis -- and Russian-American relations -- reaches an inflection point with the
assessment made by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London that
North Korea's dramatic leap in ballistic missile capability in the past year is attributable
to its clandestine acquisition of a Soviet-era technology that is available in a factory near
the frontline in Donbass war zone, close to the breakaway region held by Russia-backed
separatists. The IISS flags that North Korea's Hwasong-14 missile, tested for the first time,
twice, last month signifies an incredible leap in technology that is simply inconceivable for
human ingenuity – that is, unless Pyongyang gained access to foreign technology from an
established missile power.
However, the IISS report says,
The engine tested by North Korea does not physically resemble any LPE manufactured by the
US, France, China, Japan, India or Iran. Nor do any of these countries produce an engine that
uses storable propellants and generates the thrust delivered by the Hwasong-12 and -14 LPE.
This leaves the former Soviet Union as the most likely source.
Now, there could have been clandestine transfers of the engines from either Russia or
Ukraine with the knowledge of the local authorities – or more likely, there might have
been clandestine smuggling by the mafia from factories that are loosely guarded. The mafia is
active in both Russia and Ukraine. The IISS is inclined to point the finger at the factory in
Ukraine (known as Yuzhnoye which has facilities in Dnipropetrovsk and Pavlograd), which has
been in dire straits ever since 2006 when Russia stopped buying from it as part of the
Soviet-era supply chain and the once-vaunted factory came to the brink of financial collapse
circa 2015. To quote the IISS,
The total number of RD-250 (rocket) engines fabricated in Russia and Ukraine is not known.
However, there are almost certainly hundreds, if not more, of spares stored at KB Yuzhnoye's
facilities and at warehouses in Russia A small team of disgruntled employees or underpaid
guards at any one of the storage sites could be enticed to steal a few dozen engines by one
of the many illicit arms dealers, criminal networks, or transnational smugglers operating in
the former Soviet Union. The engines (less than two metres tall and one metre wide) can be
flown or, more likely, transported by train through Russia to North Korea. Pyongyang has many
connections in Russia North Korean agents seeking missile technology are also known to
operate in Ukraine Today, (Ukrainian) Yuzhnoye's facilities lie close to the front lines of
the Russian-controlled secessionist territory. Clearly, there is no shortage of potential
routes through which North Korea might have acquired the few dozen RD-250 engines that would
be needed for an ICBM programme.
Several questions arise. Importantly, almost all of them will have implications for the
trajectory of US-Russia relations. Most important -- the timing of the IISS report. The
US-Russia relations are on razor's edge. (See my blog Russia edgy as US prepares to
retaliate.)
Thus, can it be that the Russian intelligence leaked the information already available
with it to respectable western sources so as to underscore in western capitals that the West
has ended up creating a bleeding wound in Ukraine that is turning gangrene? (After all, IISS
has profound links with Smiley's people.)
It is entirely conceivable that the CIA and the Pentagon are ahead of the IISS' scientific
finding. Has this got something to do with the threatening reports that refuse to die away
that the Trump administration is revisiting the moribund idea of supplying lethal weapons to
hit at Russia-backed separatists in Donbass -- which Russia has been opposing tooth and nail?
Simply put, is someone firing a flare into the night sky to make the point that it is a
rotten idea to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine which will sooner or later find their way
inevitably to non-state actors? This is one thing.
Indeed, Russia is keen to engage with the Trump administration over the Ukraine crisis.
But then, Russia also hopes that progress on Ukraine would lead to an easing of Western
sanctions. Now, on the contrary, the US Congress' latest bill on Russia sanctions expressly
forbids the White House from negotiating the sanctions removal without its prior approval. If
there is ever a Gordian knot, waiting to be cut, this is it.
The IISS concludes by stressing the high importance of the "US and its allies, along with
China and perhaps Russia, to negotiate an agreement that bans future missile testing, and
effectively prevents North Korea from perfecting its capacity to terrorise America with
nuclear weapons. But the window of opportunity will soon close, so diplomatic action must be
taken immediately."
However, such a process demands a high level of Russian-American coordination and
cooperation. Of course, 'Barkis is willing'. But, is the US ready to abandon the sanctions
against Russia? There is an existential choice to be made here, because Russian intelligence
must be up to date on North Korea. Paradoxically, the US needs Russian intelligence inputs to
protect the American people from potential nuclear radiation."
Economic (sanctions) war with Russia may be a piece of cake but not so easy against China.
Both sides suffer. Especially China's wartime arch enemies' Japan and stupid India tagging
behinds.
There were speculations what China can do - import/export/wheats/soy beans/US$... Where it
hurts most, trademarks Ivanka Trump's company in China
Several have said China (and Russia) are fools, or they are cowards...why would they fall for
this again? Well, they aren't fools or cowards, and in fact there is every reason to think
they did in fact expect the US to renege on any agreement almost immediately. Especially
lately, where the US has gone completely off the rails, and no longer conceals that sanctions
are aimed as much at weakening its "friends" (competitors) as its "enemies."
That said, perhaps this was intended to be another demonstration, an emphasis,
particularly to the Europeans who are already getting sick of US sanctions. Why not agree to
sanctions as requested by the US, knowing they will never have to be enforced because of US
weaseling, while providing a strong argument to refuse all future attempts at sanctions.
What if these Trump admin actions are a deliberate ploy to backdoor making America great
again by getting other nations to set up trade barriers forcing America to return to
manufacturing
@17 michaelj72.. i think you have that exactly right, except in your last paragraph... it is
difficult to navigate, and until russia and china are of a similar level to the usa
militarily, i think they have been working towards the moment when they can do just that -
pull the plug of this ponzi / mafia type set up the usa has going..
@18 kalen / @19 pnyx... see my response to michael above... it is how i see it..
@24 ashley albanese.. we see it very similar.. thanks..
@30 daffyduck.. thanks.. interesting speculation that all sounds plausible..
@32 j swift.. i tend to see it that way too, although europe is going to have to get a
backbone at some point.. same deal all the usa lapdogs...
".. engines that would be needed for an {NK} ICBM programme."
All well and good except for the fact that NK doesn't have an ICBM capability.
The US govt admitted that the NK rockets fired were NOT ICBMs but were Intermediate missiles
used in the past to launch NK weather satellites.
Yup, I dumped google and yahoo years ago.
Yandex browser and e-mail; both are excellent.
When my anti-virus expires I'm going to Kaspersky Labs; my wife already did.
"... With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is per se no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by foreigners who will never relinquish those properties. ..."
"... Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain, arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very predictable. ..."
"... I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western world works. ..."
"... As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable." ..."
"... We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will occur almost invisibly? ..."
"... No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..) ..."
"... All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out cynically. ..."
"... Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring, anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put forward. ..."
"... Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for that murder. ..."
"... My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge. ..."
"... An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK. ..."
"... Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are not that stupid. ..."
"... There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands. ..."
"... After Iran's experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all? ..."
I'm with everyone who has already noted that amerika got where it is today by being a fork
tongued double dealer whose words aren't worth the paper I wipe my arse with.
There isn't a single agreement reached between US authorities and any other entity since the
days of treaties with the indigenous owners of the land amerika continues to purloin that
amerika hasn't breached in either the letter or the spirit, usually both.
On the other hand China isn't Iran, not only are they well aware of amerikan perfidy they
are in a position to counter it.
The fact they haven't done so yet merely indicates their preference for a square up which
doesn't cost China or any of its citizens. This is a culture which always plays the long game
no matter how long - witness their bemusement at amerikan commercial interests bitching about
listed Chinese corporations not meeting Wall St imposed quarterly 'targets'.
When I lived in Northern Australia I had a landlord for several years who never increased my
rent - this in a market where property prices were shooting up thanks to the usual worthless
asset appreciation that too many consider a wealth generator. When I asked my landlord who
was a third generation Australian the great grandson of gold miners who arrived from Shanghai
towards the end of the 19th century he said "You are paying me $25 a week correct?" I replied
yes, to which he responded "Well your week's rent is considerably more than my grandfather
paid for it, $25 was a fair price when we shook hands and so that is what the rent will
remain at unless you move out - a deal is a deal. I'm happy if you are"
That is what happened after I did move out the building which was little more than a big
corrugated iron shed was pushed over and my former landlord put an office block in its stead.
On the fringes of Darwin's CBD when I moved in by the time I left the property was most def
'down town'. The family will never sell it because for them it will always be a part of the
family morphology. The original settler would never have been able much less permitted to buy
land in 1880's China but he innately knew exactly how it related to his family once he bought
land somewhere else.
This is something that few if any of the media or business outside China fully comprehend,
an assumption has been made that Chinese, just as likely they imagine of all non-western
peoples, are morphing into western commercial mindsets.
We see this all the time when those nations who have a bureaucratic mechanism for
scrutinizing foreign asset purchases decide at least in part on the basis that the property
will eventually change hands again.
With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no
intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is
per se
no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by
foreigners who will never relinquish those properties.
I was initially positive about Chinese investors outbidding engander, Oz, amerikan and
european buyers for big chunks of Aotearoa but now I am less positive because denying locals
the opportunity to buy in their own country seems to me to be a recipe for eventual
conflict.
Trump may 'get away' with his deceit, but America will not. Whatever China eventually does
to counter these deceits may not be auctioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will
be apposite, well considered and impregnable.
Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one
iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi
Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest
of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain,
arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very
predictable.
DoubleThink concept was coined by UK BBC propagandist.
I had a dispute with allegedly UK citizen, who at THE SAME time demanded me to agree
that
1) there was no NATO promise to avoid expanding East, as there is no signed paper document
today on it, and personal speaks are merely speaks.
2) there is no threat to Russia from, and hence Russia acts unreasonably demanding
legally-binding documents to, those "anti-Iranian" missile stations in Europe, because
"everyone told you so".
And he did pursue both lanes in the SAME argument.
-----------
Now, while i admit that US and UK are different states for long, some habits seem to die
hard
-----------
They also say, Iran was promised US do not care about their invasion in Kuwait, and they
also say in 19114 German kanzler was promised UK King would not do a thing about
European(read: Continental) war.
Gorbachev did not care about any written statement as he assumed the cold war to be over
and envisioned a common European-Russian zone from "Wladivostock to Lisbon".
"The West" assumed the same but interpreted it as taking over Russia (integrating it in
the Western system) as Russia "had lost the cold war".
The West then lost the peace by their best and brightest causing a severe economic and
humanitarian crisis in Russia which led to the rise of Putin and Russia realizing that they
had to defend themselves.
Steinmeier just held a speech in Estonia accusing Russia of "thinking in terms of zones of
influence" and geopolitics whilst disrespecting the free will of people. The speech was very
coded but ended with Germany never again fighting against Russia in "blind enemity" whilst
saying before that Germany would never again do something like the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
Usually what you say in the end sticks in people's mind.
The way Victoria Nuland operated (and the EU/Steinmeier followed) showed Russia is not
alone in geopolitical thinking never mind the free will of people and their elected
representatives.
Same party as Steinmeier, Martin Schulz now campaigns with the withdrawal of US nuclear
weapons from Germany.
I agree with the voices here saying that China understands exactly what is going on.
Especially thanks to Debsisdead @ 38 for the wonderful cultural insights.
I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence
that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western
world works.
@41 lysias -
"The McCain apparently experienced a mysterious steering failure before
the collision."
I too wonder if the US Navy is experiencing asymmetrical responses from either Russia or
China or both. I greatly want to know more about all this. Joaquin Flores had a speculative
piece at Fort Russ the other day, making the point that the Navy's call to halt all
operations worldwide seems completely disproportionate to the apparent causes. Pun intended,
what's really going on below the waterline?
As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may
not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered
and impregnable."
We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions
and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical
responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will
occur almost invisibly?
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. ..
New Yorker at 10.
1)
No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to
them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private
individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..)
Are the Chinese, Gvmt., industry, military, to be considered out of that loop?
2)
All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut
up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and
Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a
positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is
expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out
cynically.
3)
Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring,
anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put
forward.
If fly-by-wire control systems can be hacked and captured on airplanes, then the same can
happen to any such system regardless of what it's guiding; and there've been hints at this
being done by the Multipolar Alliance. Recall Iran's capturing one of the Outlaw US Empires
most sophisticated drones several years ago then reverse engineering its own version.
Lots of evidence cruise missiles went awry thanks to EW. Then there were several reports
of Outlaw US Navy vessels having their systems completely shutdown via Russian EW. I imagine
PavewayIV has a good recap of these incidents.
Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw
US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing
the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination
of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be
capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for
that murder.
Detecting asymmetrical responses will be difficult since the Multipolar Alliance will be
reluctant to announce such an action, while the Unipolar Hegemon will also be reluctant since
it won't want the other side to learn how effective its actions are. Imagine if North Korea
has the capability to redirect B-1 and B-2 bombers by taking control of their fly-by-wire
systems; would you expect North Korea to announce such capability or reserve it for use?
US want China to exit production economy and become Debt consumer Economy. US can play
that stock market/futures with print money out of thin air. If Rothschilds want China to
become US debt model,...it probably happens,
Or....Chinese get RIP of Rothschilds
thanks for your personal insights debs.. it is interesting to me as i have lived in the
vancouver area for most of my life.. the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation chinese seem so
different then the new arrivals from hong kong..
I would like to agree with your view, but this new generation primarily from hong kong,
seem to have a very different mind set.. either way - thanks for sharing..
If you're ever confronted by any more British apologists on the issue of NATO missile
systems in Poland and Romania, mention the United States could only have set up the systems
by unilaterally withdrawing American signatures from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in
2002, a decade BEFORE the European Union and Ukraine 'started talks' on framing, signing, and
ratifying the EU Association Agreement (violating Article Six of the Russian-Ukrainian
Friendship Treaty of 1997, which required Russian foreknowledge and participation in any
frameworks or any agreements Ukraine had with 'a third party') that partitioned public
opinion in Ukraine and precipitated the civil war.
@44
While transcripts of the NATO-Soviet peace talks throughout 1990 haven't been released,
the U.S. Secretary of State and the West German Foreign Minister literally layed out a
post-war framework (the Nine Assurances in May; the London Declaration in July) publicly (it
was reported in mainstream German and American media) at the end of these respective
conferences BEFORE the Two Plus Four Agreement was reached.
It envisioned the 'reform' of NATO in the framework of the CSCE (now OSCE) or the
replacement of NATO by the CSCE, the ratifying of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
(building on other 'arms reduction measures by treaty' needed to permanently demilitarize
Europe), and the invitation of the original nine Soviet Republics to NATO Summits to accept
NATO Membership BEFORE post-Soviet Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus were
invited to accept membership.
The framework ('collective security') was explicitly what the Soviet Politburo had been
trying to achieve since the Soviet Foreign Ministry requested the British Foreign Ministry
(through public conferences) and the Polish Foreign Ministry (through secret telegrams) to
sign mutual security treaties in early and mid August of 1939 (which was rejected
consistently by Britain and Poland).
The Soviet Politburo was quick to end the war because it seemed the 'long strategy' had
worked, not because of Soviet indifference to formality. I think it was widely understood by
any European (worker or statesmen) the United States would never substantially compromise to
the discipline of formality, however, the Soviet Union preferred the risk and not diplomatic
stagnation.
Side note:
While I personally dislike involving a notorious personality in a social or political
history, I think it's interesting to speculate what would've happened if it was Chernenko who
lived and Gorbachev who died in 1985. He was a militarist, but never seemed committed to
decentralizing the Soviet economy and compromising so easily to the United States.
Part of b's headline; "Trump cheats...." may be wrong. Does Trump control anything at all any
more?
Not only the NK sanctions, but a corresponding increase in troop levels in Afghanistan,
(including "unknown helicopters" ferrying militants in Mazar-i-Sharif, from the Afghan base
of the 209 Afgh Nat Army corps in NATO controlled airspace, for a massacre of Hazara Shias in
Sar-e-Pol province), the increase of US servicemen training Ukrainian snipers on the Donbass
frontline and a reported blocking of a (small) Russian Bank from the SWIFT network, - all
suggest that the military have totally taken over command in the US.
That they have decided to push everyone around as far as possible. This change in policy
is since Trump "lost" his powers to Congress by massive one sided voting, and the
introduction of the "new" all encompassing anti-Russian and Chinese sanctions.
I may be wrong about WHO is in control (add your own here...), but it seems fairly clear
that the "Americans" (people) have been reduced to potential cannon-fodder.
My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge.
-----
Unfortunately this is not a uniquely US phenomena. Examples in France go back to 1875 with
the "Anarchists" (actually FOR worker's rights at the beginning), The "commune de Paris, (US
CHicago riots) where other normal people didn't want the "status-quo" of overlord-underling
to continue. Usually the movement was treated as a proto-terrorist threat, all the MSM of the
time condemning the leaders - and the whole thing finishing in a blood-bath with troops
firing on dissenters -- WWI was another "overlord organised restucturation" by the
military).
Not really OT - but I am just trying to show that the new situation has antecedents
throughout history, and if I am correct the next stage will be to cross several frontiers (by
NATO or US) "accidentally" to provoke a reaction. ie NK is another.
An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other
parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this
as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK.
Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are
not that stupid.
It should be considered that official sanctions naturally encourage, promote and serve the
black markets - the Mafia, Cartels, etc. The underground economy will surely not obey
sanctions. It should also be noted that certain official bodies will turn a blind eye and
allow certain other bodies to engage in trade, etc.
Note how the CyA brings in drugs to Mena Arkansas, for one example. And the cya plane
crash in Central America - loaded to the gills.
There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is
not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to
buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time.
China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for
few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek
dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running
Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of
Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and
Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And
thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!
Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse.
Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet
people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more
correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and
political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers.
Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put
political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'état if you
wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential
candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal
globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he
faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually
Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of
Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his
election promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the
British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in
November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began
the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the
process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever
seen had vanished.
While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re
humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and
bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching
bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War
II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after.
The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.
Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council,
Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan
to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its
longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we
failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating
the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a
Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.
Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a
strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged
indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the
certainty as to what will follow when we leave.
When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition
of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of
being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets,
concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final
resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has
been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures
of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.
Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the
West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an
alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely.
Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."
If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not
ruling out preventive war.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that
would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.
America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder
more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay
out of future wars.
America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the
NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal
immigration to
I think that the case of Korea is very different from all the others, but generally I
agree with Mr. Buchanan to the extent that I say: Pat Buchanan for President
Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,
This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he
tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together
economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he
quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so
well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals.
Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are
the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes
but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the
history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its
losses and ran.
The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when
one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the
arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand
the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern
presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.
Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he
has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen,
Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the
failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.
Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain
the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the
main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased
out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness
can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed
him in the election.
Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead
inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war
that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.
It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America
will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational
and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US
foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is
happy with this chaos is Israel.
For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very
simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys
home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these
soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have
been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the
process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.
No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely
just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over
the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention
of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks
--
Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued
here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he
is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along,
obviously, but still an excellent piece.
To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site
will last long.
Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy)
where our Scott-Pasha resides.
It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever.
We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war.
The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost.
Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day.
Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated.
Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.
I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in
the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for
him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of
violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a
silver lining.
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts.
But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk
in the Oval Office.
Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. That means he's not going to build a
beautiful wall on our southern border.
@KenH I
think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the
oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him
in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it
won't be any consolation to some members of his base.
Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by
a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while
Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any
campaign promises.
Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one
you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate
conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check
The New York
Times
or
The Washington Post
they're masters of that kind of thing.
Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely
not
include any of the following:
(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance
(before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it
wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis
would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis
and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of
actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that
war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but,
technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).
(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those
figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the
whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part
of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front
of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary
goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and
the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity)
is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of
American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US
military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.
(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally
decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order
to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be
better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and
how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted
to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea,
Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it
from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being
manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within
which they can think and speak.
But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all
that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate
statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a
Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how
many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes,
where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.
In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout
the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia
hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual
parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get
myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian
propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23
, is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com
or
consentfactory.org
Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen
before in our lifetimes
Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding
that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but
now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end
forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who
fostered it
This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top
advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires
Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times,
arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble
-
Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican
political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a
new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course
Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has
devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter
solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will
succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American
opinion will be fatal.
'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'
When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?
The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton
photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace
General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the
order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of
Neo-Nazis.
Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..
Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White
Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville
Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get
through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.
Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery
afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military
"hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth
funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the
Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite
the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association
agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an
issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in
the pro-Putin camp.
@Michael
Kenny
Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact:
the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO.
Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU
association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO
was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest
growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did
not
sign the EU agreement:
The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of
events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and
overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was
sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.
As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near
future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the
country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under
Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have
to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just
like Georgia under Sakashvili).
You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what
happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no
violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in
Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they
push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs,
these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of
provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as
Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the
core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does
not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie
Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably
prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000
"speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi
Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly
like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by
the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of
record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first
intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has
a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments.
I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless
basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.
Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.
All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls
them.
They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street
and the War State.
I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi
flag, and no extremists.
There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the
same.
Trump should talk about this.
Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.
Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.
Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of
speech and assembly.
But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West,
these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.
In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the
Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale
cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.
If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall
Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking
GREED.
But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage
at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black
thugs will be grateful and not attack them.
But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss:
"Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are
brands
created by and for
corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the
product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing
reason and critical analysis.
Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting
to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as
Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and
more people are
waking up
.
Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive
media are following the script to a Tee.
On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to
wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on
Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate"
41 times: once every 90 seconds.
"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted
them to do so.
The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from
the branding.
Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality -- an absolute essential
for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government -- the "Nazi" etc.
brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.
One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes
was chic.
Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that
cigarettes can kill you.
The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi"
Hitler" "Swastika" .
It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients
in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful
information for the American public.
!!!
*** Jews -- and they can be named & should be shamed -- were at the vanguard of branding
"Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet
Hate
nearly a decade before a single
hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise,
published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."
@Anon
I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville;
I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are
numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.
I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or
journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton,
about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power
that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.
Incredibly -- and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to
complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on
Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:
Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:
BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen
you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish
and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the
last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about -- I don't know if C Span
ever invited -- I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the
Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation
League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because
it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching -- Nazis marching down
in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to
see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and
watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit --
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate
and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't
just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in -- I don't think there's too many, but the ones
that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer
to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed
to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's
what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He
should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama -- I was always going to
write him -- I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I
wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President
Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04
Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it
under consideration.
In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names)
appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."
The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented
in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite
the Right project.
There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its
audience.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?
There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably
the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has
met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill
reports :
"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last
year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."
Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence
community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges
to this view have emerged
in recent days,
including
from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with.
"Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,
"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further
discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."
What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner:
he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave
and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how
he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?
Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness
to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece
calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian"
views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."
It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia
bandwagon. Cato
cut
their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored
Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse.
Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying
we are already at war with Russia:
"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a
mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is
up to you what choice you will make."
And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:
"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments
made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."
While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic.
Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's
initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."
The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics –
epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone
to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be
supported.
Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim
that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin.
This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we
are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.
We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning.
That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked."
We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either.
We always ask the question: " Where's the
evidence? "
"... But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge : very plausible given that there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even the WaPo seems to be backing off – and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC judges.) ..."
"... Do you think Putin is messing with their minds? ..."
The effect of anti-Russia sanctions since 2014 is that
Europe has likely
suffered
more than Russia and certainly more than the USA; Russia has used the sanctions
(and its counter sanctions) to increase domestic production (see below) whereas Europe has just
lost markets. Well, we'll find out whether Europe
has the feet to stand on that Merkel thinks it has
.
Another thing to
find out is whether Moscow decides it's had enough – as
Medvedev suggests
– and that it's time to make its "partner" hurt. (Some responses: no more rocket engines,
no overflights, no supply line to Afghanistan, no US NGOs, no Russian investments in USA, no
accepting US dollars in trade.
But Putin & Co will probably come up with something cleverer
than anything I can think of). They will be a drag on Washington's foreign policy for decades:
"never recognize" Crimea in Russia (
257.a.3
)? well, they're going to have to some time.
I am collecting
negative reactions on my site.
They're another step on the downward trajectory of the USA:
they will drive a wedge between Europe and the USA; push Russia closer to China; may even lead
to a rapprochement between Europe and Russia.
But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in
the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its
allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that
Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge
: very plausible given that
there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even
the WaPo seems to be backing off
– and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC
judges.)
SANCTIONS EFFECT.
Russian
statistics tell us that the share of imports in the retail sector is 36%, the lowest since the
2008 crash
. Food imports are down to 24% from 34% in 2014. The percentage of imports in
various categories: cereals 0.2%; sausages 1.6%; flour 1.8%; poultry 4.1%; pork 8.3%.
Gessen
will be glad that cheese imports are 27.7%, but sad that they're down from 48.4%. Sanctions
work: just not the way the US Congress thinks they do. Altogether, it's probably fair to say
that Russia is now self-sufficient in food. And production is only going to become bigger: the
potential of Russian agriculture has never been tapped; serfdom, the village mir and
collectivisation were not very productive.
CORRUPTION. The
trial of the
former Minister of Economic Development has begun
. He was caught red-handed taking a bribe
they say. I believe he is the highest ranking official yet to be charged: some –
Luzhkov
and
Serdyukov
spring to mind
– have been accused of things and been fired, but no charges laid.
We are
told
that 45,000 people have been convicted of corruption crimes over the last three and a
half years and about 350 officials have been fired this year and the same last year.
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.
What if it wasn't Russia's fault?
In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group
to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons
of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof
wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't
read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating
the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee
files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence
to the contrary.
Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted
in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names.
But their findings and doubts are only being aired by
non-mainstream
publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation.
The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their
findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather
than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.
The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as
the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other
things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General
Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly
and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced
on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the
DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse
any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer
2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of
Russian metadata in his files and his
use of a Russia-based virtual private network.
The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers
who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former
found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on
July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second
-- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second,
a speed not
commonly
available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly
over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would
have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which
the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.
However, as Forensicator has
pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something
only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content
of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates
that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and
his answers to numerous critics in a
long post earlier
this month.
VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable
technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director
for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former
technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence
officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group
is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive.
Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter,
has
pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's
material constitute the spoils of a hack.
VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions
in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used
to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency,
has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies.
While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about
Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the
past.
And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the
discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since
no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike,
the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment,
had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder
Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the
Atlantic Council
, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as
a hostile power.
One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on
hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not
transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still
focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is
to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it,
to the public.
Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to
increased hostility toward Russia...
Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you
would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor
here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's
easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem
more intent on
noting Putin's bare-chested physique and
accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not
need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its
social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.
The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line
last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold
on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to
recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made
one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to
gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home.
In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.
( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board
or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]
"... Donald Trump as President of the United States was humanity's hope, or, I should say, the hope of that part of humanity aware of the danger inherent in provoking conflict between nuclear powers. For two decades, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have thrown sticks, stones, and nasty words at the Russian bear. The US has broken and withdrawn from security agreement after security agreement and has compounded the threat that Russia sees by conducting war games on Russia's borders, staging a coup in Ukraine, a province of Russia for centuries, and by a continuous stream of false accusations against Russia. ..."
Donald Trump as
President of the United States was humanity's hope, or, I should say, the hope of that part of
humanity aware of the danger inherent in provoking conflict between nuclear powers. For two
decades, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have thrown sticks, stones, and nasty
words at the Russian bear. The US has broken and withdrawn from security agreement after security
agreement and has compounded the threat that Russia sees by conducting war games on Russia's
borders, staging a coup in Ukraine, a province of Russia for centuries, and by a continuous
stream of false accusations against Russia.
The result of this irresponsible, thoughtless, and reckless policy toward Russia was the
announcement a few weeks ago (ignored by the US media) by the Russian high command that Russian
military planners have concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on
Russia
This is the most alarming event of my lifetime. Now that Washington's criminally insane have
convinced Russia that Russia is in Washington's war plans, Russia has no alternative but to
prepare to strike first.
During the Cold War both sides received numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs, but because
both sides were working to reduce tensions, the alarms were disbelieved. But today with
Washington having raised tensions so high, both sides are likely to believe the false alarm.
The next false alarm could bring the end of life on earth, and for this there is no one to be
blamed but Washington.
Trump's emphasis on normalizing relations with Russia was a great relief to people
sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of nuclear war. But none of these
people are in Washington, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the military/security
complex, or among the presstitutes that pass for a media in America. All of these people want
to destroy Trump because he wants to make peace with Russia.
Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted in support of a bill that violates the
separation of powers and prevents President Trump from removing sanctions on Russia. As the
vote is so over-whelming that it is veto proof, the White House has announced that Trump will
sign the bill, thus surrendering and giving up on his goal of restoring normal relations with
Russia.
The White House believes that as the bill is veto proof, all that Trump could achieve by a
veto is to prove the charges that he is a Russian agent and is using his office to protect
Russia, and this could easily be turned into an impeachment proceeding.
However, there are things Trump could do, and since defusing the threat that Russia sees is
essential to the avoidance of war, it is imperative that Trump do everything he can to prevent
the military/security complex and its servants in Congress and the media from locking America
into deadly conflict with Russia.
As I wrote yesterday (
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/31/witch-hunt-donald-trump-surpasses-salem-witch-trials-1692-93/
), Trump could take his case to the American people in a major speech and point out that
Congress is violating the separation of powers, hamstringing the power of the presidency, and
making it illegal for him to reduce the dangerous tensions that previous administrations have
created with a major nuclear power.
Trump could also tell Congress that their law is unconstitutional and that he won't sign or
veto the bill, and if Congress persists he will take it to the Supreme Court.
Trump could also get on the telephone with the German politicians and corporate CEOs who
have denounced the sanctions as illegal and intended to serve US business interests at the
expense of Germany. He should tell them to force Merkel to announce that Germany will not
accept the sanctions. The EU leadership also denounces the sanctions. Trump, with a little
effort, can organize so much European opposition that he can tell Congress that as the
President of the United States he cannot permit a collection of mindless morons, which is what
Congres is, to destroy Washington's empire by driving Europeans out of it. If Trump can get the
Europeans to act, he can defeat the bill, which is really nothing but Congress' service to its
political campaign contributors in the military/security complex and the US energy
industry.
Trump is a fighter. And this is Trump's fight. He has everything to gain by rising to the
challenge, and so do the rest of us. The entire world should get behind Trump as there is no
one else to defuse the tensions that are leading to nuclear war.
I have been amazed at the stupidity and mendacity of the American liberal-progressive-left,
who have fallen in line with the military/security complex's effort to destroy Trump, because
peace with Russia takes away the orchestrated enemy so essential to the budget and power of the
military/security complex. Of course, America no longer has a left. The left has been displaced
by Identity Politics, a Zionist creation, as Gilad Atzmon explains in his books, that is
proving effective in destroying the goyim by teaching them to hate one another. In Identity
Politics, everyone is the victim of white heterosexual males, whom Identity Politics defines as
misogynist, racist, homophobic gun nuts!Hillary's "Trump deplorables." As the "deplorables"
voted for Trump, the liberal-progressive-left hate Trump and are helping the military/security
complex destroy him even it it means nuclear war.
As I predicted would be the case, Trump had no idea how to appoint a government that would
be on his side, and obviously failed completely. He is continually contradicted by his UN
ambassador, his Secretary of State, his National Security Advisor, his Secretary of Defense.
Trump is alone in his government.
So, he might as well fight. Address the American people. Organize the angry Europeans. Take
the fight to criminally insane Washington before the criminals destroy the world in war.
Already in the 21st century Washington has destroyed in whole or part seven countries,
producing millions of refugees who, together with immigrants claiming refugee status, are
altering the populations of European countries and wiping Europe off of the face of the earth.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/30/europe-is-history/
This is Europe's reward for being Washington's vassal.
Trump should say to Europe: "It is time to tell Washington that you have had enough!"
If Trump doesn't fight and is led away by the morons advising him into the camp of the
ruling oligarchs, Trump, in order to perform in a leadership role will lead American wars
against the world. As a war leader he will be supported by the ruling oligarchy, and the
dumbshit liberal-progressives, having helped the military/security complex defeat Trump's
initiative for peace with Russia, will have not a leg to stand on.
Here is my prediction. Trump's personality compells him to be a leader. Trump, having been
defeated in his peace initiative by the military/security complex, the
liberal-progressive-left, the corrupt Democrats, the corrupt Republicans, and the whores who
pass for a media will regain leadership via wars and aggression against foreign enemies.
Trump has already put illegal sanctions on Venezuela, hoping to overthrow Venezuelan
democracy and restore Washington's rule through the small group of right-wing Spanish who have
traditionally dominated Venezuela.
Russia and China had a chance to come to Venezuela's aid and to prevent the coming overthrow
of the democratically elected government by Washington, but both countries lacked the necessary
vision. Once Washington overthrows the Venezuelan government, Washington will overthrow the
government in Ecuador and have Julian Assange's diplomatic asylum revoked. Once Assange is
tortured into claiming that Wikileaks is a Russian/American organization financed by Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin, Assange will be put to death, and the dumbshit Americans will cheer.
Then Washington will overthrow Bolivia and have a purge conducted in Brazil against all
political leaders who are not on the CIA's payroll.
Then Washington will brand Russia and China "outlaw nations" and surrounded as they will be
with US nuclear missiles and ABM sites, Washington will demand surrender or destruction.
It all seems a fantasy, doesn't it. But it is very real.
Fake News A US Media Specialty
By Paul Craig Roberts
August 07, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The American
media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has
produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of
Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded
"the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to
the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the
International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of
charges by the International Criminal Tribunal.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873
Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by
the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of
mass destruction," weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was
destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was
subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered
under the pretext of judicial execution.
Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the
criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's
military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you
remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"
Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the
planned US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government?
Do you remember that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were
prevented from doing? Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful
decision" of the criminal Obama regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency? This bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the
Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's National Security Adviser.
Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its
replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian
democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?
Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?
All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W.
Bush, and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved
the lives of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part.
But the presstitutes cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and
peoples. Every one of the presstitutes is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme
Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.
We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to
4.3%. This is fake news.
The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many
economists think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's
think about that for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5%
rate of unemployment. There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in
the job market. For example, there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are
looking for a new one, and there are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to
spend more time parenting or to care for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work
force. Economists also believe that employment cannot go too low without pushing up
inflation.
Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is
full employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full
employment rate. How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at
full employment? Apparently, this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many
economists."
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Of course, the 4.3% unemployment rate is fake news. It does not include millions of
discouraged workers. When these workers who have not looked for jobs within the last four weeks
are included, the unemployment rate jumps to 22-23%.
Now consider the alleged 205,000 July new jobs. Probably about half of these jobs are due to
the add-ons from the birth-death model, and the other half from manipulations of seasonal
adjustments. John Williams at shadowstats.com will tell us. However, let's assume the jobs are
really there. Where does the BLS tell us the jobs are?
Eighty-nine percent of the jobs are in services, essentially domestic non-tradable
services.
Professional and business services account for 49,000 of the jobs, of which 30,000 are in
administrative and waste services (garbage collection) and 14,700 are in temporary help
services.
54,000 of the jobs are in education and health services, of which ambulatory health care
services, home health care services and social assistance account for 46,900 of the jobs.
62,000 of the jobs are in leisure and hospitality, of which waitresses and bartenders
account for 53,100 of the jobs and amusements, gambling, and recreation account for 5,900
jobs.
This picture of American employment has been holding for about two decades. It is a portrait
of a third world labor force. The jobs are not in export industries. The jobs are not in high
productivity, high value-added occupations that produce a middle class income. The jobs are in
lowly paid, often part-time domestic services.
The jobs do not produce incomes that provide discretionary spending to drive up business
profits. So why did the stock market hit new highs? The answer is that corporate executives are
taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's zero interest rates to borrow money with which to buy
back their companies' shares in order to drive up their bonuses, the main component of their
pay.
But these undeniable facts about employment did not prevent Christopher Rugaber and the
other financial presstitutes or newspaper headline writers or "many economists" from asking
"How much better can it get?" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution front page, Aug. 5, 2017).
It is not only seven Muslim countries that Washington and its presstitutes have destroyed in
whole or part with lies. Washington's lies have also destroyed the American economy and the
American work force.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts agrees that Democrats, RINO Republicans, military complex and the
Deep State want Donald Trump removed from the White House at any and all costs. Dr. Roberts
explains, "That's correct and, again, it's several different interests. The Democrats want him
out because they want to be vindicated that he stole the election from them through some form
of collusion with the Russians. The military security complex want him out because they see him
as a threat to their budget. Trump normalizing relations with Russia!they don't want that. They
need an enemy. The talk of pulling out of Syria also annoyed them. They don't want to give up
these wars that keep people worried and willing to support the military. . . . The media is mad
because Trump disproved all the smart people's predictions of Hillary being a shoe-in. Plus,
Trump is elected by Americans considered to be deplorable. The deplorables are white
heterosexual males. They are racist. They are sexist. They are homophobes. They are gun nuts,
and these are illegitimate people. These illegitimate people elected Trump when all of the good
people wanted to elect Hillary. So, you have that kind of left wing crazed ideological element,
as well. So, all of these things conspire against Donald Trump. What is going on is essentially
what Attorney General Robert Jackson warned all U.S. Attorneys about in 1940. He said it is
impermissible to pick a person and then go look for some crime he may have committed. . . .
And, yet, that's what the Special Prosecutor is doing in the case of Trump. We have no evidence
of any crime. Even if there was some kind of Russian collusion, it's not illegal. It's normal
for incoming governments to have open discussions with foreign governments. It happens in every
administration. It's part of the transition team. . . In the case of Trump, there is no crime,
but now there is a wide ranging investigation that has gone far beyond any sort of Russian
contacts."
Who is conspiring to push Trump out? Dr. Roberts says, "I do know about campaign
contributions, and they do come from the military security complex, and they come from energy
companies. These are two massive campaign contributors. So, that's why the Russian sanctions
bill passed. Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted for the sanctions. . . .
It's not the people who put Senators and Congressmen in office, it's the interest groups that
finance their election campaigns. So, the members of the House and Senate are not responsible
to their constituents or voters. They are responsible to their constituency of their campaign
contributors. In this case, the Congress is perfectly loyal to the energy companies and to the
military security complex, and they never are loyal to 'We the People.'"
Dr. Roberts thinks sanctions and provocations with Russia and China are "acts of war" by the
U.S. Roberts contends the U.S. does not want war. If there is war, Dr. Roberts says it will
have nothing to do with a failing economy. Roberts contends, "The notion that the government is
somehow worried about the economy and, therefore, we will go to war, that's not likely. In
fact, I think the military security complex doesn't really want a war. They want an enemy like
they had with the Soviet Union for all those decades of the 'Cold War.' They want a renewed
Cold War. They want an ever present threat because that keeps the budget funded. It keeps it
growing, and it keeps their power in place. So, this is what they want, but these things can
backfire. These are the kinds of things that will produce a war. It won't be some conscious
decision. . . . If you are talking war with Russia, nothing will be left standing."
On the economy, Dr. Roberts, who was an Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan
Administration and holds a PhD in economics, says, "There is no economy there. The markets are
rigged. The Fed has a huge trading desk, and they can trade anything."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.
Dr. Roberts is a prolific writer and sometimes writes as many as three fresh articles a
day. You can find his work free of charge on PaulCraigRoberts.org. To donate to Dr. Roberts to keep
his site running click
here.
"... while average Russian salary (excepting Moscow and St Petersburg) is around $200 per month. ..."
"... Before the sanctions, rich Russians did not give a damn about their less fortunate fellow citizens. They went for holidays to Cote d'Azur, they sent their children to study at Oxford and Yale. They were as removed from ordinary Russians as Leo Tolstoy's nobles were. ..."
"... Putin, despite his macho ways, is a very cautious politician. He is not rushing into more confrontation with the US than it is strictly necessary. He is ready to wait. ..."
...The Russian Prime Minister Mr Medvedev summed the situation in a brief and to the point
post
in his Facebook page , conveniently in Russian and English. "First, the sanctions law ends
hopes for improving Russia's relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a
declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration has shown
its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way.
This changes the power balance in US political circles."
The Prime Minister is a man whose opinion matters. He is not the weakling that the Russian
nationalist opposition branded him. While a President and a Supreme Commander of the Armed
Forces, on 8.8.8 (Aug 8, 2008, for slow thinkers) he disregarded the US calls and Russians'
divided public opinion, moved the tanks beyond the Caucasus mountains and defeated the arrogant
Georgians with their Israeli and American instructors in a brief war. Still he is a liberal,
his government carries out liberal policy, he is not seeking confrontation. If he says it's
war, albeit economic one, then it's war the US declared on Russia.
Still the more important war goes on between the Establishment and the President, and this
war is not over. Trump had been humiliated, it is true, he lost a battle but not the war. It is
too early to write him off, as Medvedev suggests.
President Putin understood that as he ordered the mass expulsion of the US diplomats
before Trump signed the bill, though previously he said he will do it after
the bill will become a proper law. If Putin would wait a few days, the expulsion could be
considered a response to Trump's signing. But Putin preferred to make the Congress responsible
for the action.
President Trump agreed with Putin, when he twitted
: "Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank
Congress!" The Russia-baiting senator John McCain replied with "You can thank Putin", but this
line of accusations leads nowhere.
Trump is in one hell of a mess, but he has some solid support. I do not mean the people, I
mean the real business sector of America. The Swamp has been fed by the virtual economy of
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, mass media, the Federal Reserve, the spy agencies. Their enemies,
the people of the real industry, support Trump, and they aren't likely to surrender. The
conflict crossed the Atlantic, and now it rages in Europe, where supporters of the Clinton
Collective had found themselves in an unpleasant situation. They're losing money, for American
business does not want to support them anymore
... ... ...
Sympathies of Putin and his supporters still are with Trump, with American nationalists, for
we can imagine a deal that can be reached with them, a deal that will allow Russia to live
peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market. It is hard even to imagine a
possible deal with devoted globalists who want to remake the world including Russia after their
own image. Still, Putin does not intend to get involved in the intra-American quarrel.
The nearest and the best he could do was waiting for half a year before acting on December
expulsion of the Russian diplomats. Now we are entering a new stage, a full-blown Cold War.
Here I must admit that it is not bad for the world, not bad at all. A great harmony between
Trump and Putin would be even better, as I described , but Cold War is
surely second best solution.
There are too many aggressive American actions all over the world. Before 1990, they were
partially blocked by the USSR. Since then, the US could do whatever it wishes, with dire
results. Interventions in Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, and elsewhere would not have happened if
there would be some counterweight to the US. And Putin's Russia didn't want to take the role of
major counterweight. The Russians acted only within very limited territories and by very
limited means. They saved Crimea from being turned into a NATO military base; they stopped the
destruction of Syria. This is very good, but far from leading global resistance to the Empire.
At best, they refused to cooperate with American designs.
... ... ...
...Putin's authoritarian regime gave the new Russian nobility of money and state positions
too much leeway. They built the biggest yachts, they threw money like there was no tomorrow,
while ordinary Russians had a very, very modest way of life. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Igor
Shuvalov flies his wife's
corgis in his private jet and owns $100 million worth real estate, while average
Russian salary (excepting Moscow and St Petersburg) is around $200 per month.
Before the sanctions, rich Russians did not give a damn about their less fortunate
fellow citizens. They went for holidays to Cote d'Azur, they sent their children to study at
Oxford and Yale. They were as removed from ordinary Russians as Leo Tolstoy's nobles
were.
The sanctions helped a bit. Some of the Putin's officials have been forbidden to travel and
thus they were forced to discover modest discomforts of their homeland. If the Cold War will
cut them off their properties in the West and will annihilate their offshore savings, they will
contribute more to their own country.
They surely do not want that; that is why the new rich of Putin's Russia are the force
against Cold War. They already call for a surrender
to US mercy . The new Cold War will make these people irrelevant, as the US communists
became irrelevant in the harsh climate of Cold War I.
The sanctions law is not a bad thing for Europe, too. By meddling in European elections, the
US created a comprador political class. These blind followers of American invade/invite
liberals were a real disaster for Europeans. With the advent of Trump, they began to get weaned
off the American tit. Sanctions are likely to strike the Europeans' tender spot, their pockets.
They are already
annoyed by what they consider exterritoriality of American law, by heavy fines applied to
European banks for doing things forbidden in the US, but perfectly legal in Europe, like
trading with Iran. The US attack on their supply of cheaper Russian gas is likely to release
them from their American tenets. So it is also positive thing.
In short, the new Cold War II is a good deal. Yes, harmony would be better, but until it
comes, give us Cold War!
* * *
P.S. I'd like to conclude on this upbeat note, but as I am paid neither by Putin nor by
Trump, I'd add that Cold War is not here yet. Putin, despite his macho ways, is a very
cautious politician. He is not rushing into more confrontation with the US than it is strictly
necessary. He is ready to wait.
We observed it in the case of diplomats. Obama expelled 35 diplomats, Putin patiently waited
for seven months. During this waiting time, he reminded of the debt many times. Only met with
American stonewalling, he decided to act, and then he expelled twenty times more diplomats.
(The exact number is not clear yet, but it is about 700 carriers of US diplomatic passport.)
This is Russian style. Russians procrastinate, stall, postpone, and when you think they forgot
or gave up they produce a lot of quick action.
Now, after the sanctions, Putin's Russia voted today Saturday Aug 5 in the UN Security
Council for the US-proposed draft with new sanctions against North Korea. The U.S.-drafted
resolution bans North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. It
also prohibits countries from increasing the current numbers of North Korean labourers working
abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint
ventures, says Reuters .
Thus Russia is punishing itself (it is an importer of Korean goods, it employs Korean workers
and there are quite a few Russian – North Korean joint ventures) and sanctioning its
North Korean ally while doing American bidding.
I regret this decision, but this is Putin: he does not want to aggravate the Russia-US rift.
He is ready to launch a counterstrike, if necessary, but he is not in a rush to Doomsday. He
does not want to give a chance to both Cersei and Daenerys to unite against him. He'd rather
procrastinate a bit more, while the two queens fight it out. I'd prefer very, very cold war
with a lot of ice and a twist of lemon, but then, I didn't pursue a pike for two hours in cold
Siberian water.
Mr Israel Shamir is quite wrong when he claims above that Seymour Hersh is " the most
trustworthy US journalist " Sy Hersh is a psy-op, a dis-info agent of some decades (see
below). Hersh's currently famous video & leak 'debunking Russia-gate', is a Trojan horse
cover for a very ugly deception.
Amidst Hersh's staged 'leak' – nicely pro-Trump to fool us – Hersh sells us a
dodgy claim that Seth Rich was, he assures us, definitely NOT killed by mafias linked to
Hillary Clinton but by some random street thug, according to Hersh's amazing 'secret inside
sources' he always has when he is running a US gov psy-op this unknown 'street thug killed
Seth Rich', but 'got scared' so didn't take Seth Rich's wallet uh-huh
Hersh is also trying to distract us from the fact that we now have a string of people who
are dead or in prison after contacting what are known as the oily US-Israeli intel frauds of
Wikileaks & also The Intercept, which are in fact 'rat traps' to help identify, silence
& kill real dissidents duped into contacting them.
Wikileaks may have helped kill both Seth Rich, & another anti-Hillary leaker, Peter W
Smith, also dead after contacting Wikileaks, with Assange absurdly claiming he never got any
Smith files. Tho Assange posted a 'reward' for info about Seth Rich – funny how the USA
international financial dragnet doesn't close Wikileaks fat bank accounts – Assange
arguably may have set up the killing.
Just to remind that, years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel's Prime Minister
Netanyahu, both admitted that 'not really living in the London Ecuador Embassy' Julian
Assange, & Wikileaks itself, are USA-Israeli intel agency frauds, the leaks all selected
& controlled. Assange was the dry run for another fraud, that of Rothschild employee
& ex-gay-p-rnographer Gleen Greenwald, who pumped the young friend of Dick Cheney &
the Brzezinski family, 'Edward Snowden' who first claimed to 'leak' to Dick Cheney's
biographer at the Washington Post with many other proofs of the fraud – a fraud Putin
himself hints at, tho he plays along, not wishing to over-provoke the USA as Shamir states
above – starting point on the Snowden fraud here:
Assange & Greenwald & Snowden of course recommend the 'TOR' browser developed by
United States Naval Research Laboratory employees working for US intel, as the 'safe' way to
contact them, uh-huh, really secure
In younger days, Seymour Hersh made his bones as a fake 'brave investigative reporter' who
like other 'limited hang-outs' of the time, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc, claimed the
official JFK assassination story, lone gunman Oswald etc, was all perfectly fine & dandy
the reward for all these people was their later fame.
Hersh and all of these fakers are totally anti 9-11 truth, against even questioning the
official narrative – Seymour Hersh, Hersh's current media partner Eric Zuesse, Glenn
Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange all of these dis-info people say the US official
9-11 story is just great, Israel had nothing to do with it, don't talk about the arrested
'dancing Israelis' or the 'Israeli art students' photographed in the Twin Towers with boxes
of bomb detonator components a few weeks before 9-11, the pix in the New York Times, no
less
Seymour Hersh – card-carrying member of the intel agency psy-op confusion brigade
– also sold a greasy, absurd alt version of the 'Osama bin Laden assassination in
2011′ fake story, Hersh claiming that Pakistani leaders helped to murder bin Laden
& toss his body pieces from a helicopter, in total insult to their own Muslim religion
HA. Whereas the actual evidence points to Osama bin Laden having died a decade earlier,
shortly after the 9-11 attacks of which, in fact, the real bin Laden denied being
involved.
"And it will be beneficial for Americans. The worst Putin can dream to do against the US:
forcing the US to close its military bases, end their interventions and regime changes,
destroying the Federal Reserve and the position of US Dollar in international trade, will be
good for you. Your country will not invade the world and invite the world. Americans will
again have work, and meaningful work. Your country will blossom."
Right on These changes alone would practically save the world, not just America. Maybe the
most important factor would be DESTROYING THE FEDERAL RESERVE, which has always had Jews at
the helm.
Of all evils, the Federal Reserve, which is NOT a part of the Federal government, but a
fucking foreign bankers cartel, is the most pernicious.
@The Alarmist
"Seriously, Vlad knows the Neocons are itching to finally take Russia off the world stage and
that the US is more than equipped to do it with relative impunity. All he can do is watch his
step and hope the fastest draw in the west doesn't decide to unholster the arsenal."
Uh? With relative impunity? I don't doubt that the neocons are itching to push the
buttons, but they won't Even these psycopaths understand that Russia has more nuclear power
than the USA, currently. If relative impunity means that erasing who knows how many American
big cities from the face of Earth is unimportant, then ok, I guess you can call it "relative
impunity."
Putin said: A preemptive strike from any side would probably mean that nobody would
survive. He means in the world. That was/is a wise thing to say.
Russia is a side-show. The main event is China. Fortunately foggy bottom and the swamp buy
the distraction and the big show continues. The longer the focus is on Russia and not China
the better the chance for Europe, Asia and Africa to avoid further US meddling.
@white noise In
the early 60s, at the time of the Cuban crisis, the total megatonnage of all Bombs was
somewhere upwards of 10,000. Since that time all(?) of the really big Bombs have been gotten
rid of, as smaller Bombs will do the job fine with better accuracy, and in addition the total
number of Bombs has gone way, way down.
As a result, the total megatons of all Bombs today is somewhere in the vicinity of
500. That's still a lot of big booms, but 500 is a LOT less than 10,000. The risk of extermination of humanity has presumably been proportionately reduced. BTW, it is surprisingly difficult to find info on total megatons, which would seem to be
an important metric to track.
You seem like a singularly competent military expert, The Alarmist LOL!Yup, that's why the US is in panic because of North Korea feeble ICBM's Because it can
even take out all the Russian ones
Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread.
A few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche
of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is
precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to
be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia
etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to
turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for
"working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with
surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North
Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides
equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more
Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better!
Cold war is not a war. And the last one wasn't one either. It is simply another word for
hostility. The hostility gets worse, or sometimes better, each side tries to hurt the other
in all the usual ways: attack allies, hurt economically, demonize in the media, try attacking
key persons among the enemy, etc This has always be done, France and England had spent
hundreds of years in this form of a 'cold war', or – on a smaller scale – Denmark
and Sweden, and many others. Only when it actually turned into a hot war with actual fighting
each other, only then there would be a war. War is too serious a business to devalue
linguistically. Let's not inflate what we have today into what it clearly is not.
The key question is not the level of insanity among the neo-cons, or who would 'win' a
nuclear war (who would want to?). I think the key still unanswered question is why are so
many Washington courtiers escalating the hostility with Russia. I have seen different
explanations: wanting Russia's resources, eager ammunition sellers, disappointed Clinton clan
hangers-on, pipelines through Syrian deserts, atavistic ethnic hatreds, even belated
bitterness over grandma's pogrom stories, but none of them – or even all of them
together – really satisfy. On closer examination each one of those reasons is more
nuanced and not compelling enough.
So, why really? Is this a force on its own in the DC ruling establishment court? Is it
something that in an almost Tolstoyan fashion is simply a flow of history, and irresistible
mental force that joins black inner-city politicians with Du Pont circle think-tank buffet
aficionados, ambitious media scribes with Georgetown professors on a sugar high from too many
cupcakes? What the is going on in their minds? How do you get extreme identity leftists from
Baltimore inner city and small city Texas 'lord-is-coming' types to sing like a well
coordinated choir? This is embarrassing because of its stupidity and total disregard for
consequences. As if we are dealing with children.
Regarding Trump: historically a ruler so far out of sync with the court that surrounds
him, but with strong popular support, either perished in an internal coup of some kind, or he
asserted himself by a drastic clean-up of the courtiers. (Or in a few cases, he would just
give up and go hunting, or to play golf). I think we are in for some turbulence.
Pentagon and Department of Energy requested 1 trillion to update US nuclear arsenal, such
action simply means all US ICBMs are not at fly-worth conditions and "bolt out of the blue"
is a fantasy.
It appears that the vote in the Security Council had been initiated by China, as the
Chinese are very worried by the developments and prefer to try more diplomacy. Russia
followed its Chinese ally. Makes sense.
Also, Putin isn't trying to avoid giving the USA some excuse to go to war against Russia,
if they wanted to, the. USA would conjure up the pretext, learn your history. He hopes for
some counterbalance to the Dragon and doesn't want to close the door on working with the USA
on this.
Russia is playing a double game with China. It's does not want to be a USA dog yet doesn't
real want a dominant China.
If Russia undermines China to much, more than it has, it will become one of the USA's
satraps. So what will it do?
Putin I would say is showing the lethargy of being confronted with 2 outcomes he doesn't
like. Regardless of how rational he has been trained to be, such training tends to involve
suppressing the emotions one way or another.
@ThatDamnGood
Also, Putin isn't trying to avoid giving the USA some excuse to go to war against Russia, if
they wanted to, the. USA would conjure up the pretext, learn your history. He hopes for some
counterbalance to the Dragon and doesn't want to close the door on working with the USA on
this.
Russia is playing a double game with China. It's does not want to be a USA dog yet doesn't
real want a dominant China.
If Russia undermines China to much, more than it has, it will become one of the USA's
satraps. So what will it do?
Putin I would say is showing the lethargy of being confronted with 2 outcomes he doesn't
like. Regardless of how rational he has been trained to be, such training tends to involve
suppressing the emotions one way or another. It takes a lot to destroy a country, even to
turn it into a satrapy. We are in very early stages of this process after literally decades
of trying. Any 'outcomes' are way, way in the future, if any would happen at all. The
interplay among major geo-political countries moves at snail pace and the changes are very
gradual.
From Russia's point of view, China is more or less contained, all they need is not to have
active hostility on that border and good trade relations – and they have both. US
hostility toward Russia doesn't play well in Europe, people there know a lot more about it,
there is a long nuanced history, and they are after all neighbors with an obvious interest in
trade. What looks like a good strategy in Washington will never play out the same way in
Europe. And having hostile relations with US might be unpleasant for Russia, but once that
has become inevitable, as all people, they will simply adjust. US is not at all important for
most things that happen in Russia.
Putin is rational enough to know that there are no end-points, no 'outcomes', just an
ongoing process. He also knows that by taking Crimea he took the most valuable thing that was
in play in this phase – and he could not had done it without the very clumsy,
self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. So I
would not describe that as lethargy, when one is basically winning, why stir it up?
@jilles dykstra
Hersh ended the Vietnam war by one photograph, My Lai, alas his description on how Obama had
Bin Laden murdered had not a similar effect. I've read that My lai was first reported in
France, Le Mond. My Lai was well known in Vietnam and was a medium level atrocity in
America's rolodex of atrocities.
Not sure quite why Hersh is such a hero for re reporting an atrocity well known except of
course to the baboons of USA.
I don't trust him either. Only part of the story gets reported.
I think Israel Shamir sometimes is too polite and respectful.
@Michael Kenny
Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread. A
few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche
of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is
precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to
be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia
etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to
turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for
"working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with
surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North
Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides
equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more
Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better! I remind our Zionist friend that the
eastern Ukraine people voted overwhelmingl y to return to Russia. They will not go
back.
Yes. we realize that Jews First Zionists wants as much "open conflict" as possible, as
long as US gentile blood is being spilled.
The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
@Michael Kenny
Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread. A
few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche
of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is
precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to
be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia
etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to
turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for
"working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with
surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North
Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides
equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more
Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better! Which DC neocon cubicle do you
occupy.
@Moi The DPRK
is a friend of sorts, being one of the few countries that recognized Crimea, but ultimately
it is China's ward and Russia would be wise to follow China's direction there.
the sanctions signing is a temporary and eventually pyrrhic victory for the slugwhores of
congress
Trump had his signing qualifiers
he can attack later
Not even close to be qualified in those matters, the same topic has been badgering me
since this "Russians this/that" erupted all over the place.
Read article, recently, trying to explain it by angle "Protestant/Puritan vs
Orthodox".
But, and now I am really going out of reservation, how about this:
The essential need of a human to have OTHER .as opponent, enemy, focus of bad things in life
stuff like that.
Say, related to "Star Wars" makeup .the need for a certain myth for a human psyche.
I think we are not in rational space any more, but deep hindbrain.
As that movie "Forbidden planet" superego/ego/ID.
Anyway ..
But, in any case, the topic should get more attention around.
@Anatoly Karlin
I agree with Anatol. Korea's connection to China is much, much stronger than Russia's. During
Korean War, the Russians had lost a few dozen men, Chinese had lost tens of thousands, or
even more. Son of Mao was killed defending Korea. All overland links of North Korea lead to
China. There is a short stretch of Russian-Korean border, but until very recently there was
no road neither bridge.
Korean trade with China is many times bigger than their trade with Russia.
However, Koreans are very strong nationalists; they are suspicious of China, and of China's
motives. Thy think China does not want to have strong Korea next to itself, and that is why
the Chinese can easily be persuaded by the Americans to join them demanding nuclear
disarmament.
Both Russia and China have big Korean communities. As a bottom line, it would look strange
for Russians to reject measures agreed by the US with Beijing.
@peterAUS "I
think we are not in rational space any more, but deep hindbrain."
Pretty much.
I'd call it an availability heuristic tangled up with a few other things.
The Cold War set a precedent of America being at odds with Russia, following the old
European example. They're reverting to something convenient. Focusing too hard on China would
ultimately be "racism", as well.
They must blame Russia, for otherwise, they'd have to admit that selling out white people
for so many decades is what got Trump elected. That would mean admitting that whites
have interests. And that is Crimestop #1.
They also hate the existence of a massive white state not totally under their thumb,
and where men are still mostly in charge. This isn't a small thing: "women's
liberation" was one of the main casus bellorum for invading Afghanistan. So Russia,
where smacking your bitch is now just a misdemeanor and the President goes hunting like old
Teddy, is in need of enlightening.
The difference between neurotics and the American establishment is that the former are
confined to over-definition of their own sphere, while the latter have the power to define
that of others. In the end, they will tear everything down to avoid confronting their own
sunk cost fallacies, just like neurotic in denial.
@Beckow
"self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. "
Why self-defeating? It kind of worked. That Russia annexed Crimea is not really a big g
deal. They do not care about Crimea. There was no real designs about turning Crimea into NATO
base or Jewish colony as some say. That they act upset is just posturing. Their argument is
legalistic. Technically Russia broke international law. But they succeeded up to some point
of prying large chunk of land from Russia's direct sphere of influence and managed to turn
Ukrainians to be hostile towards Russia. For people who do not consider peace and harmony to
be the highest value the Maidan operation was a success.
I would have to rate this column as superior, very good.
The part that starts out:
There are considerable differences between refusing to cooperate with the United States,
and working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America.
. . . .
is something I might have written in my comments even as recently as last year, but I find
myself censoring my own comments these days. I'm not as sanguine about a new Cold War as the
author is. The United States is bordering on becoming a Stasi State.
The Security forces of the US have been going after pattern-of-life information on
US citizens.
Marina has the ability to look back on the last 365 days' worth of DNI metadata
seen by the Sigint collection system, regardless whether or not it was tasked for
collection." The stored metadata is mainly used for pattern-of-life analysis. US persons
are not exempt because metadata is not considered data by US law (section 702 of the
FISA Amendments Act).
The practice of repression in Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of
control and psychological manipulation, including personal relationships of the target, for
which the Stasi relied on its network of informal collaborators,[2] (in German inoffizielle
Mitarbeiter or IM), the State's power over institutions, and on operational psychology.
Using targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried to deprive a dissident of any chance
of a "hostile action".
@utu{ There
was no real designs about turning Crimea into NATO base .}
How would you know?
There is no possible way for you to know that.
No, I don't know either, but given what has transpired since the breakup USSR and how
West/NATO lied to idiot Gorbachev about not pushing NATO Eastward, it is far more plausible
that NATO did in fact plan to oust Russia from Crimea, and the naval base there.
Oh, what a prize for NATO that would have been.
One after another country has been bribed into NATO.
NATO is right on the border of RF today in Europe.
And NATO tried and is still trying to recruit Republic of Georgia, right on Russia's border
in the Caucasus.
So NATO/US campaign to surround and strangle Russia has not stopped.
{ .to turn Ukrainians to be hostile towards Russia.}
Part of Ukrainians – the Western ones – were always hostile to Russia and
Russians, despite being Slavs. They even collaborated with Hitler to murder their fellow
Slavs, until Hitler turned on them too and started murdering the idiots.
As to Eastern Ukrainians: you are right; Maidan operation was a success, but in a
different way. With Ukraine intact, it would always be thorn on the side of Russia.
With it broken up, Novorossiya with its ethnic Russian population will eventually break free
and join Russia – and everybody will live happily ever after.
The essential need of a human to have OTHER .as opponent, enemy, focus of bad things in
life
What you wrote is about as close to what my theory would be if I felt competent to have
one. The truth is that we really don't know. On some level what the motivation is – why
people do what they do – doesn't matter. We cannot see into human psyche (thank god for
that), and in my view assigning motivations is inherently imprecise. I am just curious.
A lot of establishment people in the West crave having an 'evil white enemy'. It is
deeply embedded in the popular culture, it is today the only enemy that can exist given the
PC and historical constraints in the West. There is no other viable alternative candidate for
the role of the 'OTHER'. And Russia due to its whiteness, Christianity, but also remoteness
and a slight obscurity – with the non-latin alphabet, Orthodoxy and difficult language
– is an almost perfect 'ENEMY'. It has fulfilled this role for centuries, alternating
with the Ottoman Turkey as the designated eternal foe.
Given today's reality our civilization cannot survive if it divides itself. To put it
bluntly another civil war among the European countries will simply mean the end of the
broader European civilization. We cannot afford more WW1′s or WW2′s. So this
hysteria that is clearly out of control in Washington elite circles is very harmful. And
maybe that's why they do it.
@Israel Shamir
I think a united, independent and nuclear Korea is in best interest of the United States and
furthermore, both sides, the Chinese and the Americans are playing a waiting game to see
which way the Kim regime will blow to see if it becomes, either a destitute dependency of
China or a staunch ally of America (never say it's impossible).
@utu They do
care about Crimea – that was the price. Do you think Ukraine in Nato would continue
having the home base for the Russian Navy? How would that work? The base would be gone over
time and that was definitely part of the plan. There is no way Ukraine would be allowed into
EU without first joining Nato – the logic here was ironclad and both sides knew it.
Russia broke the international law in the same way as Nato broke it when they bombed
Serbia to force independence for Kosovo Albanians. It is hard to complain about one and
ignore the other.
Russia used to heavily subsidize Ukraine, now Europe and US are expected to do it. The
Ukrainian hostility toward Russia (and others) has always been there. It is more now, but
these hatreds come and go as circumstances change. I agree that some might simply enjoy the
chaos in Ukraine on the Russian border, but that is a very tricky goal that can easily
backfire. My view is that everybody lost on Maidan: Russia, Europe, US and most of all the
normal Ukrainians. Obama was either disengaged or extremely incompetent, this has not
benefitted US in any tangible long-term way. And it permanently removed Crimea from Ukraine.
That was a powerful lever against Russia and once used and lost it is no longer available.
So, yes it was a stupid self-defeating policy. You can tell from Washington squealing about
Crimea that they know it. They are angry at Russia for acting in Crimea, at their Kiev
'allies' for screwing it up, and at themselves for being so slow and clumsy. But it is too
late.
@Beckow They
knew that prying Ukraine from Russia would force Russia to annex Crimea. So they did not
count on getting Crimea. Ukraine minus Crimea was good enough. If Russia failed to act I am
sure they would be more happy to get Crimea as a bonus. However by forcing Russia to act they
got Russia where they wanted, i.e., aa a rouge state that does not respect international laws
and thus can be sanctioned and isolated. Only squashing the Maidan coup would prevent it.
Again somebody was asleep at the switch in Kremlin like in cases of Yugoslavia and Libya or
simply Russia did not have means like lack of sufficient number of operatives in Kiev and
Yanukovych regime. Perhaps Yanukovych was designated to do it but he did not want to be the
fall guy who ends up with blood on his hands and then in the Hague court where Russia would
certainly deliver him after restoring peace and control in Ukraine.
You can console yourself that it was Obama's mistake and so on. Time will tell. In the
meantime Russa was beaten in this round.
Russia broke the international law in the same way as Nato broke it when they bombed
Serbia to force independence for Kosovo Albanians. It is hard to complain about one and
ignore the other.
Yes, but this does not make any difference in the world as it is. Might makes right. The
West defines the narrative by which all actions are later justified in international
institutions. Russia's propaganda apparatus with RT and Sputnik are no match. Russia never
was good in PR and this kind of soft power. Not before Bolshevik revolution and not after and
not after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always concentrated its propaganda for internal
consumption chiefly to convince the population of Russia that the leadership knows what it is
doing and that its military is great. Every authoritarian regime does it. Russia has no
tradition of non-authoritarian rule.
@The Alarmist
The christian west (you keep electing the same evil mofers, so ) is out of its evil fcuking
mind, that such a situation can even be considered!
With great Power, comes great Evil.
The white race, which will never peacefully relinquish its hegemony, will forever be proof
of that.
@Logan Putin
was probably thinking of the radiation, which can last many years, and can be transported far
by the wind and rain and rivers, and even sewage. In any case, I hope we won't have to test
just how bad a nuclear war can be.
@Michael Kenny
There is a famous recorded phone conversation where American politicians discuss effecting a
coup d'etat in Ukraine. This developed into the Maidan, and the ousting of President
Yanukovich, who was loyal to Putin. John McCain was quick to visit the new government. McCain
has been involved in many similar interventionist episodes in several countries, so that was
suspicious.
It is conjecture to think if there was a plan to install a NATO base, but so, in all
appearance, the coup was engineered by the American government. At first, Putin claimed that
Russia intervened "to protect the Russian-speaking people" in Crimea. But later, he said that
it was in fact a strategic move, to protect the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. Most likely,
he decided to invade Crimea when he saw that Yanukovich fell and had to flee for his life His
next move, which was to invade East Ukraine (through proxies in this case) shows that he got
nervous with the change of government in Kiev, which announced a plan to join NATO and
EU.
@Beckow "From
Russia's point of view, China is more or less contained, all they need is not to have active
hostility on that border and good trade relations – and they have both. US hostility
toward Russia doesn't play well in Europe, people there know a lot more about it, there is a
long nuanced history, and they are after all neighbors with an obvious interest in trade.
What looks like a good strategy in Washington will never play out the same way in Europe. And
having hostile relations with US might be unpleasant for Russia, but once that has become
inevitable, as all people, they will simply adjust. US is not at all important for most
things that happen in Russia.
Putin is rational enough to know that there are no end-points, no 'outcomes', just an
ongoing process. He also knows that by taking Crimea he took the most valuable thing that was
in play in this phase – and he could not had done it without the very clumsy,
self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. So I
would not describe that as lethargy, when one is basically winning, why stir it up?"
Here is an interesting comment that was sent by a US military man from circles close to
President Trump.
We are told that congressional approval–sampled by the same polls that rate the
president at 40%–is at 4%; and since all of these polls are engineered we can easily
accept that President Trump is in reality at 60%, whilst the congressional scum actually
garners 6% approval from respondents, who are largely over-sampled in favour of democraps and
independents (republicans are almost invariably a mere third of any selected group). The
polls are very sophisticated garbage of the kind that predicted Trump's loss to Hitlery:
nothing is real any longer in this vile, technologically-driven society of knaves and
cretins.
I rather enjoy Mr Shamir's reasoning, my friend. But he is wrong about Trump. The
president is in a death struggle with the greatest alliance of traitors and kleptocrats the
world has ever known. He will win, because two-hundred-million Americans stand with him in
this fight against globalist totalitarianism. Democrap leaders and their "social justice
warrior" creatures are either seditious or guilty of outright treason. All are supported by
massive globalist wealth, the Koch brothers and George Soros, Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg,
along with a great host of other top-level players, including Carlos Slim the Inaptly Named,
who is the world's most powerful drug dealer. And yet President Trump stands tall against the
crushing tide.
Why? Because the American presidency, while not nearly as autonomous as its French
counterpart, functions as does our sun among the more distant stars. Trump can be attacked
ceaselessly, even "indicted" as you suggest he may be–FOR NOTHING!–but his
position at the heart of the U.S. governmental system is unassailable. And even if he is
impeached by a future democrap majority, good to remember that Clinton went nowhere,
disrupted the nation for two more horrible years after his impeachment, and then went on to
loot the planet free of any stigma. Trump is a force for good, is beloved by tens of millions
and is the most effective communicator in political history, tapping into the psyche of
average Americans in a way that even Ronald Reagan could not match.
The left is satanic. It will continue to peddle its vomitory prescriptives, engineered
polls, engineered riots, engineered outrage among its bicoastal supporters–and Trump
will continue to work eighteen hours daily for the American people, undermining the
illegitimate Federal Reserve system that is largely responsible for the West's boom and bust
economic cycle, remaking the nation's infrastructure, at last reforming the moronically
complex tax code, unravelling so-called Obamacare, which sought to control 40% of America's
economy for the benefit of global insurance companies. Illegal immigration is already down
70%. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been overhauled at light speed (veterans were
literally dying whilst waiting for care that they earned). American manufacturing renewal is
being championed in every way by this president, while the Paris Climate Accord is dead to
U.S. and America has been withdrawn from TPP, a disgraceful globalist compact designed to
annihilate what remains of this country's manufacturing base.
My distant cousin will have to go. McMaster is working against President Trump. He is a
neo-con globalist operative who wants war with Russia. McMaster's team has worked to isolate
the president from developing events; these people have filtered information that should be
fully analysed by Donald J. Trump; they have purged advisers who favour détente with
Russia, together with a realistic approach to Ukraine and Syria. McMaster cannot be trusted.
And Trump does not like him personally, happily enough. But these delicate moves take time
and we have no time. The satanic left, aided by the deep state and its creatures, is working
to eliminate the president. If they are successful, America will soon be finished.
What goes up must come down. The wildly inflated stock market is most likely going to
crash and with it the global economy. President Trump will be on the side of those who are
left out of the current temporary boom, the tens of millions who will be wrecked by this
coming disaster, "the forgotten men and women" to whom he refers in every speech. Corrosive
structures that Western elites built to enslave U.S. are coming apart at the seams. The
inevitable economic realignment will benefit President Trump. If we can keep him alive. And
if our president falls, the deep state goes down with him.
@utu To begin
with, Russia can at least claim that Ukraine was part of Russia for a long, long time. And
it's the same people, Slavs. Centuries of history lived together. So, one could argue that
Ukraine is Russia's business, to some extent. But it's definitely none of America's
business.
It doesn't look like a success, anyway. The CIA ehr, I mean, the government in Kiev, has
lost Crimea and the Donbass to Russia. And I can't see how could they recover them without
making the interventionism (which is making the USA a hated country all over the world)
significantly more obvious and risking a retaliation by Russia, which has nuclear power to
really worry about, in spite of comic books fantasies a la Captain America.
Perhaps the American government should worry more about its own people than in scheming
how to control other nations.
This new war with Russia is by and for the jews with their lickspittle puppets for
israel.
It is about Russia stopping the defeat of Syria.
it is about Putin not bowing to judaized America and the judaized west.
it is about Trump not bowing to the corrupt, deep state – the judaized state."
Exactly. Putin is being demonized by the corporate media for a reason. He is going against
the designs of the Jewish cabal. Also Trump is, and that's why the corporate media is
demonizing him too, and also why they will try to impeach him.
The fact that Putin and Trump had a very cordial meeting of two hours and a half at the
G20 is also no coincidence. And it could have been a longer conversation, but they both were
urged to go and meet other dignitaries that they had WAITING in line, because they considered
their meeting more important.
@utu Might
makes right? So, you're saying that brute force alone is ok. That's barbaric, uncivilized.
Very neo con, actually, and very in tune with the pro-Jewish rethoric of war, war and more
war. You're not another minion of the Jews, are you?
But the might has not worked well, anyway America could not win a war in Vietnam, or
Korea, or Afghanistan, or Irak, or Syria Nowhere.
The American government should perhaps worry more about its own people and its own affairs
inside USA territory than in scheming how to control and invade and hurt other countries.
Human kind certainly needs for all these neo con crazies in the government to finally give
up on their lunacy.
@white noise
Then again, Russia rubber-stanped the UN sanctions on North Korea in a more MAD day and age,
they might have vetoed. Vlad knows the hand he has been dealt.
@white noiseSo, you're saying that brute force alone is ok.
What is wrong with you people? What happened to reading comprehension? When one makes an
affirmative statement that A is B this does not imply that one approves or condones that A is
B or that one does not think that A should not be B.
@utu
Motivations are hard to establish. But when we focus on the sequence of observable events, it
looks like a major part of the plan was to 1) push the Russian Navy out of Crimea and 2) over
time turn Sebastopol into a quasi-Nato naval base ('temporary visits'?). These things take
time and you can imagine that 15-20 years time-frame and a Ukrainian fig leave in the
meantime would be used. Same as e.g. with the Baltics.
they did not count on getting Crimea. Ukraine minus Crimea was good enough.
Crimea is geo-politically and strategically by far the most important part of Ukraine.
Hitler had dreams about it and started German settlements there in the middle of WW2. It is
that good. It has been a central piece of geography there for 3-4,000 years, from ancient
Greeks, Goths, Ottomans, Russia. It is not credible to think that Washington planners gazing
at maps of the region would not salivate at getting it, or at least at denying it to Russia.
Without Crimea southern Russia is more or less surrounded.
It didn't work because Russia moved very fast. The clumsiness of the Kiev overthrow, the
incompetence of the Maidanistas and their sponsors, and the general chaos and inertia were
the reasons. Why in the holy f..k didn't Kiev secure key points of Crimea ahead of time? They
had the forces, at a minimum they could had caused a stalemate, a division as in Donbass.
Instead they focused on prancing around Yanukovitch's saunas and on who would be at meetings
how frequently each week – listen to Nuland's tape, it is embarrassing in its
shallowness and amateurism.
Ukraine as an appendage to Nato, as an irritant to Russia, as an unofficial forward base
– all of that is very expensive to sustain permanently. Kiev players know that they are
indispensable so they will raise the costs. Unless an enormous investment is made into
Ukraine ($100 billion plus sustained aid, and not in 'loans'), the place will be an economic
basket case. They are cut-off from both the Russia's market and also the EU market. People
are leaving as quickly as they can. Democracy doesn't flourish in a situation like that, we
are more likely to see a series of odd-ball strongmen. And those, as US has learned around
the world, are hard to control. So what is the gain? It probably felt good in 2014-15, but
longterm unless it gets successfully escalated it is a cul-de-sac. An escalation is extremely
risky, Russia has nukes and they have shown in Crimea that they will make sudden assertive
moves.
Maidan was a media success, as was the 'Orange Revolution' 10 years earlier. But it was a
strategic screw-up. It handed Crimea to Russia on a silver plate, that was simply not going
to happen under any other circumstances. (Could Nuland be a mole?)
@utu Russia may
never have been very good at propaganda during the age of mainstream media hegemony, but now-
in the age of virtually absolute informational fluidity- there is no need for state sponsored
propaganda. The current dichotomy is set in stone. The stupid mouth breathers will continue
to accept the mainstream MINITRUE propaganda as gospel, while the more articulate and
intelligent will accept the in depth and scholarly analysis provided them by the alternative
media. All the latter have to do is to state the facts. The former have no choice but to
spout their foolishly consistent kosher narratives. The latter will lose among those with
even a modicum of cerebral ability, and they will continue to succeed among the lobotomized
infotainment consumers.
@Brabantian Mr
Israel Shamir is quite wrong when he claims above that Seymour Hersh is " the most
trustworthy US journalist " ... Sy Hersh is a psy-op, a dis-info agent of some decades (see
below). Hersh's currently famous video & leak 'debunking Russia-gate', is a Trojan horse
cover for a very ugly deception.
Amidst Hersh's staged 'leak' - nicely pro-Trump to fool us - Hersh sells us a dodgy claim
that Seth Rich was, he assures us, definitely NOT killed by mafias linked to Hillary Clinton
... but by some random street thug, according to Hersh's amazing 'secret inside sources' he
always has when he is running a US gov psy-op ... this unknown 'street thug killed Seth
Rich', but 'got scared' so didn't take Seth Rich's wallet ... uh-huh
Hersh is also trying to distract us from the fact that we now have a string of people who
are dead or in prison after contacting what are known as the oily US-Israeli intel frauds of
Wikileaks & also The Intercept, which are in fact 'rat traps' to help identify, silence
& kill real dissidents duped into contacting them.
Wikileaks may have helped kill both Seth Rich, & another anti-Hillary leaker, Peter W
Smith, also dead after contacting Wikileaks, with Assange absurdly claiming he never got any
Smith files. Tho Assange posted a 'reward' for info about Seth Rich - funny how the USA
international financial dragnet doesn't close Wikileaks fat bank accounts - Assange arguably
may have set up the killing.
Just to remind that, years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel's Prime Minister
Netanyahu, both admitted that 'not really living in the London Ecuador Embassy' Julian
Assange, & Wikileaks itself, are USA-Israeli intel agency frauds, the leaks all selected
& controlled. Assange was the dry run for another fraud, that of Rothschild employee
& ex-gay-p-rnographer Gleen Greenwald, who pumped the young friend of Dick Cheney &
the Brzezinski family, 'Edward Snowden' ... who first claimed to 'leak' to Dick Cheney's
biographer at the Washington Post ... with many other proofs of the fraud - a fraud Putin
himself hints at, tho he plays along, not wishing to over-provoke the USA as Shamir states
above - starting point on the Snowden fraud here:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/21/russia-govt-report-snowden-greenwald-are-cia-frauds/
Assange & Greenwald & Snowden of course recommend the 'TOR' browser developed by
United States Naval Research Laboratory employees working for US intel, as the 'safe' way to
contact them, uh-huh, really secure
In younger days, Seymour Hersh made his bones as a fake 'brave investigative reporter' who
like other 'limited hang-outs' of the time, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc, claimed the
official JFK assassination story, lone gunman Oswald etc, was all perfectly fine & dandy
... the reward for all these people was their later fame.
Hersh and all of these fakers are totally anti 9-11 truth, against even questioning the
official narrative - Seymour Hersh, Hersh's current media partner Eric Zuesse, Glenn
Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange ... all of these dis-info people say the US
official 9-11 story is just great, Israel had nothing to do with it, don't talk about the
arrested 'dancing Israelis' or the 'Israeli art students' photographed in the Twin Towers
with boxes of bomb detonator components a few weeks before 9-11, the pix in the New York
Times, no less
http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/03/02/world-trade-centers-infamous-91st-floor-israeli-art-student-project/
Seymour Hersh - card-carrying member of the intel agency psy-op confusion brigade - also
sold a greasy, absurd alt version of the 'Osama bin Laden assassination in 2011' fake story,
Hersh claiming that Pakistani leaders helped to murder bin Laden & toss his body pieces
from a helicopter, in total insult to their own Muslim religion HA. Whereas the actual
evidence points to Osama bin Laden having died a decade earlier, shortly after the 9-11
attacks of which, in fact, the real bin Laden denied being involved. So I suppose Wikileaks
blowing the whistle on Iraq during the Bush admin was to the globalist's agenda?
So I suppose pedogate was only controlled information that the globalists wanted to get
out as well? Even though the corporate media has been locking that story down like their
lives depended on it Also funny how they release pedogate the day after Trump's pussygate was
made public Whoever backs Wikileaks is in some type of alliance with Trump
Wikileaks is the result of the NWO-autonomous joint Russian-Israeli tech sector, and you
don't even know that Israeli Nationalists (e.g. Bibi, believe it or not, even though they
colluded on 9/11, but I suppose the globalists wanted Israel to call out Soros last month
smh) are opposing the Globalists/Rothschilds these days, so I suppose that shows how much you
know. You don't even know that there is a split between the "Zionists", hell you probably
think the Rothschilds/NWO are loyal to Jews and Israel before anything. Believe it or not, to
some degree, they even use Israel as a front, and Israel has been biting their hand since
atleast Contra (Carter was the bankster's pick they did not want Reagan).
All that said I actually agree on your original premise of Seymour but then you take it on
a tangent. And upon closer observation you're just another one of those emotional, "its all
one giant conspiracy" pundits.
There are lots of signs of it. For example what compelled Netanyahu to get cozy with Putin
and let Putin have his little show of muscle flexing in Syria?
The split however is not about the ultimate goal. There is only one goal and they agree on
it. It is about the tactics and the priorities on the way to it.
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe
to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist,
inter-imperialist contention.
The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international
misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion
of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security
Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime
change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder.
"We came, we saw, he died!")
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died
Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam,
against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of
the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable
(whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly
in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of
Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the
U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated
as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has
fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.
Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory
(and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June
that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has
shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way."
But where will this power lead?
The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal
op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market."
But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to
be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut
the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own
profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative
markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable
than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production
capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional
hydrocarbons."
The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election
meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian
actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary
Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine
into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).
The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the
Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin
is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between
Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between
Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump
outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature
for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In
other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a
new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view
of the U.S.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned
the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring:
"we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which
take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry
for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and
simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The
foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker,
president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on
the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."
This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan
effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire,
is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat
to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates
freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)
U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find
Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with
traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when
the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large
part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.
Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely
tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues." No bromance here.
Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream
media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that
"there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."
"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself.
He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile
that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands
die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that
to my face."
Politics vs.
Commerce... in RussiaAugust 6, 2017No
Comments ↓ Posted in Uncategorized It's not
easy to find a disinterested and well-informed view of the Russian economy these days. I don't
know a better source among economists than Kenneth Rogoff, of Harvard University.
The former chief economist of the IMF (2001-03) has no axe to grind as far as I can tell,
beyond a certain taste for good housekeeping and global order. (His wife, Natasha Lance Rogoff , produced Sesame
Street for Russian television in the Nineties.) An early diagnostician of the severity of
the 2008 financial crisis, he was author, with fellow Harvard professor Carmen Reinhart , of This Time Is
Different (Princeton, 2009). As a reformer, he wants to rein in on cash ,
especially $100 bills. Rogoff
wrote up a recent estimate of Russia for Project Syndicate , a source of op-ed
articles by economists.
He made two basic points.
The first is that 25 years after the Soviet Union came apart, Russia remains a victim of the
resource curse , and therefore highly vulnerable to the cycle of commodity prices. The
great preponderance of its foreign earnings come from the export of oil and gas. With the price
of a barrel of oil at $119 Russia was riding high as Dimitri Medvedev completed his sole term
as president, in February 2012.
Vladimir Putin began his third term just as the cycle turned down. The price of oil fell to
$27 bbl in 2016. A deep recession accompanied the plunge, comparable to what the US suffered in
2008-09, Rogoff wrote, with real output contracting 4 percent. The ruble fell by half against
the dollar, forcing consumers to cut back sharply. The Ukraine crisis welled up halfway through
the downturn: Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Moscow; the annexation of Crimea
followed, and brought US and European sanctions that exacerbated the recession, as least
somewhat.
That Russia avoided a financial crisis, Rogoff wrote, owed largely to the efforts of the
Central Bank of Russia, and its governor, Elvira Nabiullina . Despite strenuous
objections by various oligarchs, she kept interest rates high to control inflation (cut from 15
percent to 4 percent) and forced banks to raise capital and write down loans (at least the
smaller, less politically-connected banks). Twice Nabiullina has been cited by the trade
press as central banker of the year. Putin reappointed her in March
to a
second five-year term.
Rogoff's second point: Russia suffers from the failure to diversify its economy. The price
of oil is back to around $50 bbl, but growth prospects for the year are barely 2 percent.
The Economist
reported last week that Daimler-Benz broke ground on a new Mercedes-Benz plant northwest of
Moscow -- the first such foreign automaker investment since sanctions were imposed three years
ago.
Russian media blame the sanctions, Rogoff wrote, but far more pervasive are the problems
identified by economist Sergei Guriev – weak institutions, courts inparticular. Guriev,
head of Moscow's prestigious New School of Economics,
fled in 2013 rather than risk retribution for his opposition to Putin's third presidential
term. He is today chief economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
"Without reform" wrote Rogoff, "there is little reason to be optimistic about Russia's
long-term growth trend despite having an enormously talented and creative population."
I have a lot of sympathy for central bankers. In principle, and sometimes in practice, they
are among the most importantan protectors of social order. Reading about Nabiullina, whose
contributions Putin underscores by regularly referring to her in public by her first name, I
realized the extent to which I see the story of Russia's transition through the eyes of
Jane Jacobs , the
American-born Canadian social philosopher.
Guardians (a term she took from Plato) are custodians of the political order –
leaders, priests, soldiers, police, bureaucrats and, yes, central bankers. An extensive
commercial class called the bourgeoisie has grown up in the last several hundred years as well -- traders, or commerce-seekers, in Jacobs's terminology, as opposed to guardians. The two ways
of life are essentially incompatible. Problems arise when one moral code or another gets too
much of an upper hand in society; or when values are commingled.
Guardians shun trading, exert prowess, cherish obedience and discipline, adhere to
tradition, respect hierarchy, prize loyalty, take vengeance, deceive for the sake of the
task, embrace leisure, dispense largesse, behave ostentatiously, remain exclusive, show
fortitude, remain fatalistic, and treasure honor.
Commerce-seekers shun force, compete, prize efficiency, are open to inventiveness and
novelty, use initiative and enterprise, come to voluntary agreements, respect contracts,
dissent for the sake of the task, are industrious, thrifty, invest for productive purposes,
collaborate easily with strangers and aliens, promote comfort and convenience, are
optimistic, honest.
Russia has been investing heavily in its guardian class since 1993 – the men and women
of power known as siloviki . What chance is there that
leaders who already recognize the necessity of a rising commercial class will accommodate it
with new ways and institutions in the future – sooner or later? Pretty good, I'd say. But
what a lot of tension in the meantime!
. xxx
Marshall
Goldman , a mainstay of the Wellesley College Department of Economics for several decades,
died last week, at 87. He was well known, too, as an expert on the mysteries of the USSR's
centrally-planned economy, appearing frequently on television. As a member of Harvard's Russian
Research Center, he wrote six books about the Soviet transition
Goldman had one major scoop as a Sovietolgist, according to David
Engerman, of Brandeis University: The USSR in Crisis (Norton 1983) broke the news and
galvanized the public debate about the future of the Soviet Union, just as the Reagan arms
build-up reached its peak. Goldman followed up with five more books, concluding with
Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia (Oxford, 2012). Those six books constitue
an indelible record of what we knew (and thought we knew) and how we knew it (or didn't) -- a
first-rate first draft of the history of those years.
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire.
that the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them.
Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His
caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it
clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and
covert means.
As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of
restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will
play a big part in post-Putin politics.
If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links
(via
proxies like ISIS)
, the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain
much support.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were
shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.
Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))
Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is
idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to
import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions
will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if
the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra
gas to Asia anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.
Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement,
which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing,
including I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.
Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its
discretion. If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he
would be overridden for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely.
From there, it's completely realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good
many Republicans would go along with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*
I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that
people read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully.
But in his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the
Supreme Court if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements
of the sanctions bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.
It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it
open to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand
now - while the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the
sanctions both fail and help to tear the EU apart.
* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece
agrees that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support
impeachment, and adds:
"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's
term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real'
Republican in his place."
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was
entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."
Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the
meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm
not sure if such a term for his style even exists.
But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I
don't see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing
the legislation makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines
being drawn in the sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision
making these days is murky at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving'
as being part of his character. Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.
And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one
navigate the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders
are out to destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get
their way so they are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they
are wielding when they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I
haven't read the vote tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted
against it).
My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction
and maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v
Trump/Pence.
Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an
option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their
construction. At least I think it's Boing.
If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and
cry about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an
excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the
constitutionality of the bill.
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I
immediately thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S.
government is in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great
deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands
from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S.
should be warned a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just
such an event.
thanks b.. i am super busy so not able to comment and read the comments like i would like,
but i am sure someone else has already articulated what i am going to say... is it a failure
of strategy, or is it a continuation of the same strategy to make war for financial reasons
on others? seems like a combo of both at this point.. either way, when do the western puppets
wake up, or is that not going to happen, as they are a part of this same financial ponzi
scheme as well?
Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of
government very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto,
and a veto would only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation
of powers. As matters stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.
If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and
bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence
supporting legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.
He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due
the impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute
and you've got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll
numbers sinking). On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts
instead of caving and earning the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect
he might have gotten a little respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept.
I agree with b.
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will
lead to?
When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in
mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous
delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The
actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing:
war.
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing;
I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN
PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with
notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this
latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the
two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both
houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from
Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your
constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job description?? Now I have to
fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has
already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3
billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that every single
current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC
interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him
the opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I
will contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well.
There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the
North Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash
attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis
of Evil" or "the Free World"
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number
of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has
anyone else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military
power block to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people
see the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen
will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid
of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?
Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing
- gruel for the knuckleheads.
There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real
warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would
love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one
possibility he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then
upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat
from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote
was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.
For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted
links to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all
together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool
realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never
will--it will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing
Returns is finally laying the lumber to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked
imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his American Century was
being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.
>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining
office. Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate
debates.
>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that
these populists were phonies but Trump is the real deal?
>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more
importantly, Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.
>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election.
The media dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had
a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see:
NYPost:
Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever
despite having every advantage.
>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so
close to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served
Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama
was foreign born.
>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?
>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not
seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's
health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.
>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First'
and/or fuel the scaremongering over Russia:
> The missile attack on Syria
(despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria
in 2013)
and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);
> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after
he did;
> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly
attacking Sessions; etc.
> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the
election;
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best
way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a
few changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from
the new sanctions.
I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough,
nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get
hit, then something may happen.
With Trumps amendments? to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master
rather than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.
Berry Friesen@43 -
"...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his
veto..."
Depends. From Mercouris:
With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say
that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the
integrity of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was
therefore guilty of committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against
Russia, the US's main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the
US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.
Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves
the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical
atmosphere the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional
sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept
this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.
This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the
thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris
points out, the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is
entirely up to
Congress
, not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand
up in US courts and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.
An impeachment resolution
HR 438
has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing
Trump's firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's
sponsor acknowledges it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be
amended with additional articles of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one
assumes all Democrat lower house representatives vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will
only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it. It has not been submitted to a vote, but
will when the representatives think the charges are numerous and strong enough that 2/3rds of
the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily a Democrat vs. Republican
fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a much more obedient
replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous vote for the
sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching:
"Trump must go!
They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks
credible and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding
the veto as the
only thing
Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment
against Trump. The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of
manufactured evidence to confuse the little people and raise doubt.
FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with
Russia. It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a
side-effect) blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to
impeach Trump. If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!
If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an
indictment (perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges
are true. In any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which
will be used to strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with
elections. A veto to the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not
'prove' an impeachable offense by itself.
An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to
interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if
they prove the thesis by law or logic.
The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement
lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove
sufficient. They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only
'evidence' that will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking...
Trump Must Go!
I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make
much difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more
than, say, a microsecond or two.
1. Veto and explain why to the public: partisan politics / Russian witchhunt / etc.
2. Pocket veto and appeal to the public in the weeks before Congress returns from its
summer recess. Congress-critters would then have to explain why they disagree with the
President.
3. Veto/pocket veto and issue an executive order that imposes sanctions but doesn't tie
his hands. If Congress re-enacted, it would ONLY be to unconstitutionally impinge on
Presidential authority.
(This strategy was suggested by someone at ZeroHedge.)
4. A combination of 2+3: first 2, then 3 if Congress decided to re-enact.
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he
only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed
in MSM.
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear
warhead. And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be
bothered to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one
with the clear, open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which
will forever stand as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if
needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible
move for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic
ties. It's probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a
third of Europe to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier
when that kind of moves would've been far less costly.
I realize I never did acknowledge your various comments in that thread - I was grateful,
and should have said so. I copied them all to a note for my reference, and thank you for
offering all of that material. Time is my great enemy and I'm something of a hit-and-run
poster in threads - but this one I did come back to scan, as I do increasingly with most of
these MoA threads nowadays, it seems...
By the way, I read - and value - all of your comments here that I see.
It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out
laughing. Thank you.
On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The
country may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in
suitable hands.
I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys.
This business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing,
by and large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me,
it's still a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of
something real that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.
I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the
paradigm that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual
persons that comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it
today.
I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their
discussions verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified
- it would not have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of
negotiation came from the people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination
of interests.
I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from
the beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves,
we sovereign individuals. Story not finished yet.
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone
involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a
Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC
staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC
staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made
to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from
swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty
good.
@22 fast freddy..good comments too, but your link doesn't work.
@38 Wwinsti.. i think what blues is trying to say is if you don't have any engineers, or
manufacturing capabilities which have been in a state of decline for many years, all the talk
of reverse engineering is just that - talk and nothing more..
@48 frances.. it is funny that russian pawn claptrap was given such a regular viewing in
the msm, that some now seem to truly believe it.. i am still waiting for the tooth ferry
myself.. let me know if anyone sees it, lol...
@50 goldhoarder. yeah, as b notes - if the usa was trying to throw russia and china
together - they are going about it the right way!!!
@56 karlof1.. good article.. thanks!
@59 paveway quote "This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will
eventually support the thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with
elections." as i mentioned earlier the usa is fucked in the head.. but maybe a better way to
put it is in an opening quote in naomi kleins latest book (2017) called "NO is not enough"...
"I'm not looking to overthrow the American government, the corporate state already has." John
Trudell - Santee Dakota activist, artist, and poet ( 1946-2015) in the msm we trust, lol -
it's in the national anthem... i like how you ended your post, lol..
@62 clueless joe.. i had heard they cleaned up the bill to make it more palatable for
europe.. i don't know if that is true, but i read that somewhere.. they put some usa #1
export sugar on top of the large dose of arsenic.. lets see if the poodles go for it,
lol...
@64 karlof1.. sounds about right.. i guess the leader was a bit too democratic for his own
good, lol.. clearly he was doing something right for the cia to want to get rid of him..
@67 grieved.. thanks.. i use the lol way too much and clearly i am mostly talking to
myself and laughing at my own stupid jokes that most people find boring..i admire your
optimism and the fact you don't fall prey to cynicism nearly as quickly as me! i hope you are
right, but man we are at a tipping point here in a major way circa 2017... i don't see things
moving forward all that favourably but i do admire those who can stay positive in spite of
what we are seeing here..
@68 debs is dead.. thanks.. too many pop ups from fp, so i'm closing the window.. sounds
about right though.. to quote the pilger article that karlof1 left @64 - "A coup against the
man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but
because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia." msm verses trump...
msm is winning, lol... trump is going to have to pick up the twitter pace or he is in deep
doo doo, or deep 6'd by the deep state.. mcmaster - what a disgrace to the scottish clan this
man is.. he needs to change his friggin nam...
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims
he's cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by
TimesofIsrael
despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They
see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees
McMaster as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated
here
. Their association with the
Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually
portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an
article
that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins
views in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's
presidency, including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo
characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts
that globalists and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set
of recommendations, arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."
I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the
debate about who or why.
The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law
enforcement and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected
terrorists into the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or
investigation. This is all (according to him) being driven by political correctness and the
globalist's/Soros' 'open borders' scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep
hearing the same thing from European nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a
blind eye to terrorism suspects entering their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy
theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do say so myself.
Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and
everyone is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be
in danger of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War
version 2.0 were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially,
"We'll try again
in Afghanistan, but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"
I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just
skeptical of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically
choked out. Incometence - sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I
guess...
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.
What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?
Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream?
I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which will underpin Turkeys economic
developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria,
and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.
As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a
unified EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves
attacking Russia.
But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost far
far more than Russian gas.
Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the
transit fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and
who will do that.
Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being
built and when that is due to be operational
All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything
should kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia
were unjust and have not been proved.
The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of
attacks which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.
P S - I disagree with b that medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want
him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal
disappointment in Trump.
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and
one, multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the
current shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt
"reset" of some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever
is going to happen will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.
What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the
rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own
deathly dissonance?
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist
pressures that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the
backbone to stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid
warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest
critique of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the
pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of the Russian government. For him to make such a
statement must have been either as a plea or warning ("Dude! You're killing your own agents
over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an indication that even the lapdogs in
Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's sovereign Russia camp and
make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for the last few years.
Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening of Putin's
hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital to kick
out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up to
the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in
our hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign
nation based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise
missiles into another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh
yeah, for other unproven absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its
infinite wisdom to presumably restore good sense and order to perfidious political
shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would be the same Supreme Court that protects
scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
?).
by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories
about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an
"automated" error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into
"Mordor". Other erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name
of Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the
fictional realm in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows.
The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when
users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any
'evil' intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works
"without the intervention of human translators". Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was
fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash
Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the
messenger.
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is
no puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop"
attitude designed to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war
voters, Obama-style, of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough"
against his will, sob).
Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump
has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?
https://www.rt.com/politics/398429-trump-is-no-puppet-russian/
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to
33% (below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each
other, and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds
American standards, polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the
current foreign minister made an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among
others, he stated that while Poland is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this
time it is not competitive with Russian natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at
least double of those in Europe, but liquifying, transporting highly explosive cargo etc.
adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American Patriots is needed, but not finalized
(the government talks a lot about expanding the military to face the Russian threat, but they
are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got a big fleet of armored limousines
for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).
Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and
given that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms
race. I guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American
sanctions. The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU
bureacracy", but what alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S.
liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate
target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the
Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to
an independent German energy policy. " b
Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked,
compressed, shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon
footprint comparisons online.
if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on
this issue....
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with
sanctions is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now,
is just a punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that
somehow those two leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to
US misleaders. That, it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a
total creep. Both parties exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals,
even more disgusting. When called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the
ring as commanded.
A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the
way to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned
that statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC
fine print, which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.
Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then
next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and
treachery!
A system of represntative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of
ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the
whole body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the
rich didn't like this system at all.
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A
velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await
conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than
later.
Sanctions, but US still buying billions of dollars worth (including baksheesh) of rocket
engines and screwing around with international space station boondoggle (million dollar
toilet seats, hammers and widgets). And more baksheesh.
Try to google search a fixed price on one Russian rocket engine.
The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through
the Middle East in the 21st century
3. No Qatari offer to Damascus
The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing
an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around
statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting
between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.
Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah
bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at
Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)
The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland
pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian
ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
But Dargin says:
"There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached
Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur,
rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."
Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and
political ties between Doha and Damascus.
'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the
Qataris were fighting for a pipeline'
- Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report
Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the
Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple
were also being portrayed as personal friends."
Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for
supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels
was over a future pipeline.
Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we
don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a
pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."
4. The Moscow-Tehran connection
Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline,
also known as the Islamic Pipeline.
Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were
pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but
until July 2011, there was no formal
signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the
whole country.
"
While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities.
First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the
bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international
sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.
Second,
Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas.
Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit
gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The
sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.
It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even
more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack
NK.
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters
to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years
the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation.
Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that
almost never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven,
not here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced'
members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval
rating.
Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the
populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality
were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of
great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a
stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was
finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued
that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality
. Two works
providing info on this issue are
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in
the United States
and
People of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American
Civilization
, although there are many others.
Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A
new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current
institutions will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0
using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a
classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law
must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice
and thus its destruction.
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard
as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US
working constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less
conflict. As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for
a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and
self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer
relations between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article.
Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions
are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer
Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the
EU.
@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself
on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or
make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger
than POUTS. Then - the second option.
17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one
Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human
rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four
times as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the
two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the
world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than
POUTS. Then - the second option.
Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon,
not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't
know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show
and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities
and 'think tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal
with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're
trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after
all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and
probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?
In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the
lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's
told!
Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs
little from the use of the terms "Conspiracy Theory," Conspiracy Theorist," and
"Revisionist"--all are used in an attempt to degrade the credibility of an individual or
organization. A priori, everyone aside from First Peoples is an Internationalist as commerce
with other nations of the world isn't optional--it's mandatory, thus the phrase within the
Declaration about telling the world why. Rather, Isolationist is used to tar someone against
Imperialism, the best examples being the very heated debate during the 1930s over the various
Neutrality Acts when the hoi polloi last had some vestige of control over the federal
government. (Pacifist was also a derogatory term used then for similar reasons.) Did Trump
say he would close US borders to one and all--people, goods, financial instruments? No, of
course not; so, he cannot be labeled an Isolationist. Now, is he what's known as a Nativist
promoting an America First Nativism? During his campaign, he did use rhetoric of that sort,
but his actions in office don't provide confirmation. (The 1932 presidential election also
gives an excellent example of how the terms Internationalist and Isolationist are used
politically, with FDR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his Internationalism thanks to the
divisive League of Nations debate after WW1.)
Essentially, to be an informed citizen of almost any nation, one needs the equivalent of a
PhD in their national and world history, with minors in philosophy, anthropology and
economics, which is why the citizenry seems so ill-informed--they are!--and easily led by the
nose.
"... The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later. ..."
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes
a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM |
61
It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out laughing.
Thank you.
On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The country
may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in suitable hands.
I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys. This
business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing, by and
large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me, it's still
a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of something real
that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.
I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the paradigm
that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual persons that
comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it today.
I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their discussions
verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified - it would not
have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of negotiation came from the
people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination of interests.
I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from the
beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves, we sovereign
individuals. Story not finished yet.
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims he's
cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by
TimesofIsrael despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They
see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees McMaster
as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated
here . Their association
with the Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually
portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an
article that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins views
in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's presidency,
including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo characterizes the
Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists and
Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set of recommendations,
arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."
I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the debate
about who or why.
The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law enforcement
and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected terrorists into
the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or investigation. This is all
(according to him) being driven by political correctness and the globalist's/Soros' 'open borders'
scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep hearing the same thing from European
nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a blind eye to terrorism suspects entering
their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do
say so myself.
Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and everyone
is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be in danger
of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War version 2.0
were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially, "We'll try again in Afghanistan,
but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"
I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just skeptical
of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically choked out. Incometence
- sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I guess...
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.
What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?
Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream? I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which
will underpin Turkeys economic developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern
Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria, and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.
As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a unified
EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves attacking
Russia. But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost
far far more than Russian gas.
Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the transit
fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and who will do
that.
Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being built
and when that is due to be operational
All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything should
kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia were unjust
and have not been proved.
The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of attacks
which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.
P S - I disagree with b that Medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want
him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal disappointment
in Trump.
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and one,
multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the current
shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt "reset" of
some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever is going to happen
will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.
What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the
rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own deathly
dissonance?
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist pressures
that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the backbone to
stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid
warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest critique
of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of
the Russian government. For him to make such a statement must have been either as a plea or warning
("Dude! You're killing your own agents over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an
indication that even the lapdogs in Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's
sovereign Russia camp and make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for
the last few years. Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening
of Putin's hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital
to kick out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up
to the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in our
hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign nation
based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise missiles into
another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh yeah, for other unproven
absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom to presumably
restore good sense and order to perfidious political shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would
be the same Supreme Court that protects scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember
Exxon Shipping
Co. v. Baker ?).
by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about
Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an "automated"
error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into "Mordor". Other
erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name of Russia's foreign
minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google
said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian
[sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any 'evil' intent, telling The Guardian
in a written statement that its translator tool works "without the intervention of human translators".
Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes,
many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided
to take a shot at the messenger.
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is no
puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop" attitude designed
to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war voters, Obama-style,
of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough" against his will, sob).
Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump
has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to 33%
(below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each other,
and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds American standards,
polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the current foreign minister made
an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among others, he stated that while Poland
is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this time it is not competitive with Russian
natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at least double of those in Europe, but liquifying,
transporting highly explosive cargo etc. adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American
Patriots is needed, but not finalized (the government talks a lot about expanding the military
to face the Russian threat, but they are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got
a big fleet of armored limousines for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).
Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and given
that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms race. I
guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American sanctions.
The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU bureacracy", but what
alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?
I agree with the post at 78. Trump is all in with these sanctions -- he is just trying to fool
his base. Does anyone really think he did not know the bill was being drafted - Paul Ryan and
Priebus would have told him. An article on antiwar.com states the following.
Tillerson says he's told Russia that US will respond by Sept. 1 to Moscow's move to expel US
diplomats. They want an escalation and Cold War
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied
natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential
conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy.
" b
Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked, compressed,
shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon footprint comparisons
online.
if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on this
issue....
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with sanctions
is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now, is just a
punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that somehow those two
leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to US misleaders. That,
it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a total creep. Both parties
exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals, even more disgusting. When
called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the ring as commanded.
A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the way
to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned that
statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC fine print,
which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.
Paul @ 83
Putin has not commented on the sanctions. Medvedev did. As for North Korea - that's a separate
topic all together which I am sure b will cover.
Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then
next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and treachery!
A system of representative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of
ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the whole
body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the rich didn't
like this system at all.
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill.
A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await
conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later.
The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through
the Middle East in the 21st century
3. No Qatari offer to Damascus
The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing
an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around statements
by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting between Russia's
President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.
Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah bint
Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at Doha airport
in January 2010 (AFP)
The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland
pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian
ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."
But Dargin says: "There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached
Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur,
rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."
Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and
political ties between Doha and Damascus.
'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the
Qataris were fighting for a pipeline' - Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report
Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris
were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple were also
being portrayed as personal friends."
Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for supporting
"terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels was over a future
pipeline.
Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we
don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline;
that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."
4. The Moscow-Tehran connection
Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline, also
known as the Islamic Pipeline.
Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were pre-contract
memorandums of understanding, but until July 2011, there was no formal signing [between
Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the whole country.
"
While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities. First,
the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the bill,
particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international sanctions, as is Syria,
since 2011.
Second, Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas. Sanctions
mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit gas from the
South Pars field that borders Qatar.
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The sanctions
are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.
It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even more
difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack NK.
"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters
will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."
Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these
fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost
never go to the top of the building.
Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working
for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.
All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not
here on Terra Firma.
Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members
of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.
Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the populous
is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality were those people
in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of great importance when
we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a stake in the process and
compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was finally deemed to have equal
rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued that full equality under the
law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in With Liberty and Justice for
Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality . Two works providing info on this issue are
The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States and People
of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization , although there are
many others.
Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A new
document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current institutions
will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian
principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool.
But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw
US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as
portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working
constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict. As he says,
"The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily
and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations
between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I
am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are
the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran
alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.
@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself
on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make
the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS.
Then - the second option.
AT #88:
Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc
17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one
Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human
rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four times
as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
/div
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the
two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the
world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS.
Then - the second option.
Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not
one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know
prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses
structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think
tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without
giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him
and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after all, a billionaire capitalist,
who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show
me a big capitalist who hasn't?
In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights
are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!
The real question is who controlled Imram Awan and who planted him into Congress (as a mole). The level of criminal negligence
demonstrated during his hiring is atypical for the
USA government. And especially for government IT. Which is staffed by very security conscious people, as a rule. So he
definitely should have a "sponsor" among intelligence agencies to accomplish such a feat and suppress all the "flash
lights" that lighted during evaluation of his candidacy. I think that "I want this guy" request from Debbie Wasserman
was not enough. She is no Hillary Clinton ;-) But to which country this intelligence agency belong is an open question,
but most probably this was a USA intelligence agency. I doubt that Mossad would use Pakistani as their agent.
Notable quotes:
"... To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between 30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees." ..."
"... At one point, Imran brought into the House as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being recently fired by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000. ..."
"... To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees, Imran also hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman. ..."
"... The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff. Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014. ..."
"... It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial reporting on the investigation of the Awans family, repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff. ..."
"... As of February 2016, the Awans came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem. Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after he was actually arrested. ..."
"... Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan. ..."
"... Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments. ..."
"... [An earlier version of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ] ..."
There has been surprisingly little media follow-up on the story about the July 25 th Dulles Airport arrest of House
of Representatives' employed Pakistani-American IT specialist Imran Awan, who was detained for bank fraud while he was allegedly
fleeing to Pakistan. The mainstream media somewhat predictably produced
minimal press coverage before the story died. The speed at which the news vanished has prompted some observers,
including Breitbart, to sound the alarm over a suspected cover-up of possible exposure of classified information or even espionage
that just might be part of the story that we are now calling Russiagate.
To be sure, the tale is a strange one with plenty of unsavory links. Thirty-seven year old Awan, his wife, sister-in-law and
two brothers Abid and Jamal worked as IT administrators, full and part-time, for between
30 and 80 congressmen , all Democrats, including former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
They did not have security clearances and it is not even certain that they were in any way checked out before being hired. Nor were
their claimed skills at IT administration confirmed as their work pattern reportedly turned out to consist more of absences than
time spent in the House offices. One congressional IT staffer described them as "ghost employees."
At one point, Imran brought into the House
as a colleague one Rao Abbas, someone to whom he owed money, best distinguished by his being
recently fired
by McDonald's . Abbas lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran's wife as a rental property. He may have had no qualifications
at all to perform IT but the congressmen in question did not seem to notice. Abbas wound up working, on the rare occasions that he
went into the building, in the office of Congressman Patrick Murphy, who was at the time a member of the House Intelligence Committee
as well as for Florida Congressman Theo Deutch. He was paid $250,000.
To cover for all the non-working but on the payroll employees,
Imran also
hired a high school friend Haseeb Rana, who actually did know something about computers. Rana reportedly did "all the work" and
kept wanting to quit for that reason. It was also against House rules for an IT administrator to fill in for someone else, as Rana
routinely did, since each such employee had be personally registered by the congressman.
The Awans and their two friends were all taken on as salaried employees of the House of Representatives at senior civil service
level paygrades of ca. $165,000 annually, which normally is what is paid to highly experienced senior managers or chiefs of staff.
Imran's younger brother Jamal was only twenty years old when he was hired at that level in 2014.
The process of granting security clearances to Congressional staff is not exactly transparent, but it is not unlike the procedures
for other government agencies. The office seeking the clearance for a staff member must put in a request, some kind of investigation
follows, and the applicant must then sign a non-disclosure agreement before the authorization is granted. Sometimes Congress pushes
the process by demanding that its staff have access above and beyond the normal "need to know." In March 2016, for example, eight
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee requested
that their staffs be given access to top secret sensitive compartmented information.
It is not known if the Awans, who were working for several Intelligence Committee members simultaneously, would have been
involved or had access to the computers able to pull up classified material being used by those staffers, but Buzzfeed, in its initial
reporting on the investigation of the Awans family,
repeated the concerns of a Congressman that the suspects might have "had access to the House of Representatives' entire computer
network." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that that was not the case. In office environments, the IT administrators routinely
ask for passwords if they are checking out the system. WikiLeaks emails confirm that Imran certainly had passwords relating to Congressman
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as well as to others on her staff.
Congress paid the Awans
more than $4 million between 2004 and 2016 at their $165,000 salary level, a sum that some sources suggest to be
three or four times higher than the norm for government contractor IT specialists performing similar work at the same level of
alleged competency. Four of the Awans were among the
500 highest paid of the 15,000 congressional staffers. The considerable and consistent level of overpayment has not been explained
by the congressmen involved. In spite of all that income being generated, Imran Awan declared bankruptcy in 2010 claiming losses
of $1 million on a car business that he owned in Falls Church Virginia that ran up debts and borrowed money that it failed to repay.
The business was named
Cars International A, abbreviated on its business cards as CIA
The Awans family also was noted for its brushes with the law and internal discord, though it is doubtful if the congressional
employers were aware of their outside-of-the-office behavior. The brothers were on the receiving end of a number of traffic citations,
including DUI, and were constantly scheming to generate income, including what must have been a
hilarious phone conversation to their credit union in
which Imran pretended to be his own wife in order to wire money to Pakistan. They were on bad terms with their father and step-mother,
including forging a document to cheat their step-mother of an insurance payment and even holding her "captive" so she could not see
their dying father. Their father even changed his last name to dissociate himself from them.
As of February 2016, the Awans
came under suspicion for having set up an operation involving double billing as well as the theft and reselling of government
owned computer equipment. It was also believed that they had somehow obtained entry to much of the House of Representatives' computer
network as well as to other information in the individual offices' separate computer systems that they were in theory not allowed
to access. The Capitol Hill Police began an investigation and quietly alerted the congressmen involved that there might be a problem.
Most stopped employing the Awan family members and associates, but Wasserman-Schultz kept Imran on the payroll until the day after
he was actually arrested.
Some of those defending the Awans, to include Wasserman-Schultz and the family lawyer, have insisted that he and his family were
the victims of
"an anti-Muslim, right-wing smear job," though there is no actual evidence to suggest that is the case. They also claim that
the bank fraud that led to the arrest, in which Imran obtained a home equity loan for $165,000 from the Congressional Federal Credit
Union based on a house that he owned and claimed to live in in Lorton Virginia, was largely a misunderstanding It has been described
as something "extremely minor" by his lawyer
Chris Gowen , a
high priced Washington attorney who has worked for the Clintons personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.
It turned out that Imran and his wife no longer lived in the house which had been turned into a rental property, a clear case
of bank fraud. The Awans had
tenants in the house, an ex-Marine and his Naval officer wife, who were very suspicious about a large quantity of what appeared
to be government sourced computer equipment and supplies, all material that had been left behind by the owners. They contacted the
FBI, which discovered hard drives that appeared to have been deliberately destroyed.
The FBI is certainly interested in the theft of government computers but it is also looking into the possibility that the Awans
were using their ability to access and possibly exploit sensitive information stored in the House of Representatives' computer network
as well as through Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, which Imran had access to and was connected to the Democratic National Committee server.
It is believed that Imran sent stolen government files
to a remote personal server . It may have been located in his former residence in Lorton Virginia, where the smashed equipment
was found, or as far away as Pakistan. As Imran Awan is a dual-national, born in Pakistan, the possibility of espionage also had
to be considered. By some accounts the Awan family traveled back to Pakistan frequently, where Imran was treated royally by local
officialdom, suggesting that he may have been doing favors for the not very friendly government in Islamabad.
Considering the possible criminal activity that Imran and his family might have been engaged in and which was still under investigation,
the Capitol Police and FBI determined that he should be stopped in his attempt to flee to Pakistan. The charge that Awan was actually
arrested on at the airport, bank fraud, was an easy way to hold him as it was well documented. It allows the other more serious investigations
to continue, so the argument that Imran Awan is only being held over a minor matter is not necessarily correct.
Awans had wired the credit union money and some cash of his own to Pakistan, as part of a $283,000 transfer that was made in January.
His wife Hina Alvi also left the U.S. two months later.
She was searched by Customs officers and it was determined that she had on her $12,400 in cash. She also had with her their three
children, and numerous boxes containing household goods and clothing. It was clear that she did not intend to come back but there
has been no explanation
why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it is a felony.
As Imran Awan
reportedly had access to Wasserman-Schultz's iPad, he presumably also was able to see the incriminating Hillary Clinton emails.
He used a laptop in her office as well that was, according to investigators, concealed in an "unused crevice" in the Rayburn House
Office Building. It is currently being examined by police but Wasserman-Schultz tried strenuously to recover it before it could be
looked at. She pressured the
Chief of the Capitol Police Matthew Verderosa to return it, threatening him by saying "you should expect that there will be consequences."
Initially Wasserman-Schultz refused to cooperate with the police, refusing to provide her passwords and not permitting them to
open her computers, but Fox News reports that she has recently apparently allowed the authorities to do a scan.
There is another odd connection of Imran Awan that goes back to the neocon circle around Paul Wolfowitz during the Iraq War. In
late 2002 and early 2003, Wolfowitz regularly
met secretly with
a group of Iraqi expatriates who resided in the Washington area and were opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqis had not
been in their country of birth for many years but they claimed to have regular contact with well-informed family members and political
allies. The Iraqi advisers provided Wolfowitz with a now-familiar refrain, i.e. that the Iraqi people would rise up to support invading
Americans and overthrow the hated Saddam. They would greet their liberators with bouquets of flowers and shouts of joy.
The Iraqis were headed by one Dr. Ali A. al-Attar, born in Baghdad to Iranian parents in 1963, a 1989
graduate of the American University of
Beirut Faculty of Medicine. He subsequently emigrated to the United States and set up a practice in internal medicine in Greenbelt
Maryland, a suburb of Washington D.C. Al-Attar eventually expanded his business to include nine practices that he wholly or partly
owned in Virginia and Maryland but he eventually lost his license due to "questionable billing practices" as well as "unprofessional
conduct" due to having sex with patients
Al-Attar was
investigated by the FBI and eventually
indicted for large scale health care fraud in 2008-9, which included charging insurance companies more than $2.3 million for
services their patients did not actually receive with many of the false claims using names of diplomats and employees enrolled in
a group plan at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington. In one case, the doctors claimed an embassy employee visited three of their clinics
every 26 days between May 2007 and August 2008 to have the same testing done each time. The insurance company paid the doctors $55,000
for more than 400 nonexistent procedures for the one patient alone.
Dr. Ali A. Al-Attar fled the United States after the indictment to avoid arrest and imprisonment and is now considered a fugitive
from justice. Late in 2012 he was observed in Beirut Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official. Al-Attar is of interest in this
case because he appears to have been a friend of Imran Awan and
also loaned him $100,000, which was never repaid. The FBI is currently looking into any possible international espionage specifically
involving the two men as Awan and his associates clearly had access to classified information while working in the House of Representatives
that would have been of interest to any number of foreign governments.
The Imran Awan case is certainly of considerable interest not only for what the investigation eventually turns up but also for
what it reveals about how things actually work in congress and in the government more generally speaking. I don't know which of the
allegations about what might have taken place are true, but there is certainly a lot to consider. Whether the case is investigated
and prosecuted without fear or favor will depend on the Department of Justice and FBI, but I for one was appalled to learn that the
official who quite likely will
oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother
of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. If that should actually occur, it would be a huge conflict of interest and it has to be wondered if
Wasserman would have the integrity to recuse himself.
There are many questions regarding the Awan case. One might reasonably ask how foreign-born IT specialists are selected and vetted
prior to being significantly overpaid and allowed to work on computers in congressional offices. And the ability of those same individuals
to keep working even after the relevant congressmen have been warned that their employee was under investigation has to be explained
beyond Wasserman-Schultz's
comment that Awan had not committed any crime, which may have been true but one would expect congressmen to err on the side of
caution over an issue that could easily have national security ramifications. And how does a recently bankrupt and unemployed Imran
Awan wind up with a high-priced lawyer to defend him who is associated with the Clintons? Would that kind of lawyer even take a relatively
minor bank fraud case if that were all that is involved? Finally, there are the lingering concerns about the unfortunately well-established
Russiagate narrative. Did the Russians really hack into the DNC or were there other possibilities, to include some kind of inside
job, a "leak," carried out by someone working for the government or DNC for reasons that have yet to be determined, possibly even
someone actually employed by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? There are certainly many issues that the public needs to know more
about and so far, there are not enough answers.
[An earlier version
of this article appeared on The American Conservative on August 3 rd ]
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely
event I were to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance
and allow me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
The Department of Justice needs to do its job looking at the Clintons, the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, Donna Brazile and others.
The stench of corruption is appalling, and the Russia thing looks more like a fraudulent story to keep the pressure off, particularly
since the phony dossier which started it was compiled at the behest of a political consultancy which usually works for the same
crowd. I think it is about time that Mueller's fishing expedition be closed down and the necessary draining of the swamp be commenced.
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... Actually, the whole Awan-US Congress case is about the High Treason. No security clearances. The open
access to the classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (oh the irony!) and the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
There are should be arrests made of those congresspeople who allowed the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity by inviting
and financing the non-qualified personnel (fraudulent hiring).
An important question is, who pays Chris Gowen, a very expensive and well-connected lawyer, for the defense of the documented
fraudster and possible spy.
That Steven Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz oversees the investigation
is a scandal of gigantic proportions.
Those making the presstituting peeps about Russiangate should be from now on pummelled with the facts of the Tale of the Brothers
Awan.
This is a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people
were spying. Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince'
them to do so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer
ripoff in DC.
@Dana Thompson Somebody
should write a movie script based on this. It would be better than American Hustle - call it Pakistani Hustle, maybe. The pitch
would start with, "It's the Sopranos meet the Simpsons."
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed
Hillary Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey
dragged his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried?
What if they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they
never expected that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to
the Mueller, Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning
stages had to predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game
of strip poker? What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the
historical analogue of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest
episode of war pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What
are the chances that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods
on all of them, and she'll file that affidavit if she has to.
Killing freedom of speech in America, one google search at a time:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
"According to reports, Google works hand in hand with the NSA and CIA to expand unconstitutional spying on everyone everywhere
and to suppress independent and dissenting thought and expression. For example, on July 31, the World Socialist Web Site reported
that "Between April and June, Google completed a major revision of its search engine that sharply curtails public access to Internet
web sites that operate independently of the corporate and state-controlled media. Since the implementation of the changes,
many left wing, anti-war and progressive web sites have experienced a sharp fall in traffic generated by Google searches."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/31/goog-j31.html
@Seamus Padraig "As
Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no
leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair)
and the Trump Justice Dept. seems to have zero interest in it
I suspect this and other reasons- like the serial leaks from the highest levels of the intelligence agencies are why Trump
is becoming openly exasperated with Sessions
I suspect that Sessions knows that too much exposure of back-room dealings of the deepstate (with perhaps the Senate), would
be potentially inconvenient.
when Lindsey Graham! came to Jeff Sessions defense, I sort of knew then that Jeff Sessions is a deepstate asset
@F. G. Sanford What
if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency? What if Seth Rich leaked the emails, and they exposed Hillary
Clinton to prosecution? What if the "deep state" panicked because it could no longer control the narrative? What if Comey dragged
his feet on a slam-dunk investigation because the "deep state" was sure Clinton would win, and it could all be buried? What if
they hadn't had time to consider "Plan B" in time to head off investigation of Clinton Foundation fraud? What if they never expected
that Anthony Wiener's sexting would get his computer seized by the NYPD? What if the whole story extends back to the Mueller,
Wolfowitz, Clarke and Tenet cabal, and all of their think-tank gurus? What if somebody realizes that the planning stages had to
predate the Bush-Cheney administration? What if Russia-gate and Clinton-gate are playing out as two hands in a game of strip poker?
What if one side refuses to fold? What if Hillary threatens to file a sworn affidavit? What if Mueller is the historical analogue
of John J. McCloy, the anonymous "deep state" Chairman of the Board? What if this is just a plot in the latest episode of war
pornography? What if it's called, "Debbie Does Dulles", and its stars include "Many Talented Celebrities"? What are the chances
that somebody important goes to jail? I'm guessing the odds are pretty long. I'm betting Hillary has the goods on all of them,
and she'll file that affidavit if she has to. I'm sorry F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied
to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between
the real, and the phony, narratives which have been put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy
theories' are made to become conspiracy theories.
It's possible the Wasserman-Schultz – Awan scandal was raised subsequently by a caller to C Span, but as the above schedule
of C Span Washington Journal programming displays, if the American people wanted to in-depth information about the Awans, they'd
do better to tune in to RT, where Dr. Phil Giraldi explained the case and labeled it "the scandal of the century"
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Where is Mr. Wasserman's
boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person in this critical
job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would stop DOJ from firing
the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions.
@Ace Foreign-born
people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance. I mean in the highly unlikely event I were
to become a Chinese citizen (and be 40 years younger), would the Chinese be so stupid as to give me a clearance and allow
me to work in a key government office?
Obviously not but forget"obviously" when we're talking about the U.S.A.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information.
@annamaria "As Assistant
DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and still no leads!"
Amazing. How come that the name "Wasserman" has become spread over the major ongoing DC scandals: The leak of the DNC emails
(the pseudo-Russiangate), the greatest breach in the national cybersecurity (Awan affair), and finally, the death of Seth Rich,
a DNC employee who went into contact with Wikileaks re the DNC machinations. Looks like American "democracy on the march," Clinton
style.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-brother-steven-wasserman-accused-burying-seth-rich-case/
"The Seth Rich Case: Nucleus of An American Coup Attempt:" http://www.phillip-butler.com/seth-rich-case/ Maybe it should be called
Wassergate.
@EdwardM Where is
Mr. Wasserman's boss, the U.S. Attorney for D.C.? Oh, right, it's an Obama holdover. Why hasn't President Trump put his own person
in this critical job? (Apparently he has nominated someone but as usual the Senate is in no hurry to approve him. Nothing would
stop DOJ from firing the current guy and placing the Trump nominee in an acting position, just as Obama did with the incumbent.)
This story would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. The quintessential example of foreigners from corrupt societies learning
quickly how to work our system. We have to give the Awans credit for milking liberal banks' and Democrats' foreigner- and Muslim-worship
(combined with sheer stupidity) to refrain from asking any questions. There is no Muslim-worship among the ziocons at DNC, who
got caught in the Awan affair. The Muslim card is a desperate argument for the currently unstoppable process of investigation.
Whether Mr. Wasserman or his boss or Clintons' lawyer defending Awan for the undisclosed amount of money, the train is moving
and the word Treason is in the air.
The most serious detail of the Awan affair is the violation of the protocol re classified information: The Awan family had no
security clearance, there was no documentation of the confirmation of the previous employment and no records for their relevant
education/training. Just to reiterate: the family (with a history of fraud and suspicious connections) has an open access to the
classified documents of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/exclusive-house-intelligence-it-staffers-fired-in-computer-security-probe/
Wasserman-Schultz has been directly involved in the greatest breach of the national cybersecurity. She tried to impede the investigation
and she kept the fraudsters on the US-taxpayers-paid payroll up to the day of the arrest of the main culprit. She did that despite
being warned by the police. She should be stripped already of her security clearance and arrested for the breach that was done
on her watch and with her active help.
Foreign-born people should be barred for life from holding any kind of security clearance.
Several years ago, I was denied employment in an aerospace company because I was considered a security risk for having relatives
abroad. This was done in spite of the fact that I was already working for the same company in another division. In the end, I
had the last laugh, because a week later a company employee, a native born white American, was arrested for passing out secret
information. It's all about minimizing risk. My respect for Sikhs would make me inclined to grant security clearances to them
liberally. My overall position, however, is that we have let in far too many foreigners than sane persons would and are stupidly
phlegmatic about leaving illegals here to "make a life for themselves" or "make a contribution" (at the expense of native born
Americans).
You were entitled to the last laugh indeed. We do not lack for native born white Americans. In fact, they are the source of
our fundamental problems.
n no explanation why she was even allowed to leave since carrying more than $10,000 out of the country without reporting it
is a felony.
Not a felony, but a mere civil infraction. Not reporting carrying more than $10k across the border can be either a criminal charge
with fines up to $500k and jail time, or a civil violation which often results in all unreported assets being seized and forfeit
and possibly with a civil penalty of up to the amount forfeit, or even both criminal and civil. The fact that she was allowed
to go on her way with her cash shows an unusual deference to the lady.
@Seamus Padraig His
boss, no doubt, is also an Obama flunkee. That's entirely possible given Trump's bewildering indifference to personnel matters.
He appears to have been hamstrung at the outset, eschewing both philosophical leadership and staffing up with loyalists. His
director of personnel is a bad joke but Trump simply doesn't see it or care. He made a point of saying how he hires good people
and lets them run but competent isn't the same thing as loyal or otherwise appropriate
@Cloak And Dagger
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the law is only meant for we ordinary citizens and not for the elite. Those of us
who are silently hoping for the indictment of Debbie and Hillary are sure to be sorely disappointed.
There is no justice anymore in these United States whose domestic and foreign policies are controlled by the deep state. Some
days can be so bleak... I agreed but it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her and her brother.
@anonymous This is
a staggering story. What a load of incompetence and coverup. This government is a total sieve. Of course those people were spying.
Even if they didn't want to spy, for whatever reason, the Pakistani government could surely find ways to 'convince' them to do
so. Most of these politicians appear to be so clueless that it's difficult to comprehend. It's just a carnival of taxpayer ripoff
in DC. It could possibly be a case of intensional incompetence. There are a huge number of people IN Congress that are totally
committed to destruction from within. The Trojan Horse has been within the gates for a surprising number of years. Trevor Loudon
has an interesting video on Amazon titled The Enemies (inclde the "s") Within. If accurate, it IS intensional incompetence. It
may be on Youtube as well.
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis
@Sowhat I agreed but
it sure would be nice if Sessions would get her...and her brother. I just saw this posted. Don't know if it is completely true
but it fits with other information. Devastating.
@Joe Tedesky I'm sorry
F.G., but what if all the various narratives, which are being supplied to the Seth Rich murder end up only being a way of hiding
the truth within plain sight, so as to make it hard to distinguish between the real, and the phony, narratives which have been
put in place, as to only confuse us truth seekers? This is how 'conspiracy theories' are made to become conspiracy theories. F.G.
said "What if the Awan brothers are "cutouts" for another intelligence agency?" But of course. They're perfect patsies, just like
in our most famous "conspiracy theory" dubbed case.
Were the Awan brothers really gathering intelligence for Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)? And was the ISI on
secret contract with the CIA?
I for one was appalled to learn that the official who quite likely will oversee the investigation of the Awans is one Steven
Wasserman, Assistant Attorney for the District of Columbia, the brother of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Yup. And guess what? As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder ...
13 months on and still no leads!
When the hell are Trump and Sessions going to get serious about going after these freaks?
As Assistant DA for DC, Wasserman is also ultimately responsible for investigating the Seth Rich murder 13 months on and
still no leads!
In a recent broadcast, Michael Savage suddenly savaged what he called "fake news from the right" such as the Seth Rich murder,
Pizzagate (which he misrepresented as relating to hookers), etc. The presentation seemed curiously disengaged.
My guess is that Savage and his family were physically threatened.
@Sam Shama What evidence
prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection? Al-Attar is a known Hezbollah operative with a connection to Awan. Pakistan
is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
What evidence prompts your scepticism about the Hezbollah connection?
Read what was written: LACK of evidence -- in the face of the logic of antipathies -- prompts the skepticism.
Pakistan is next door to Iran which finances Hezbollah. You want all that to be airbrushed away?
Israel shares borders with Lebanon, which is home to Hezbollah; it was at Israel's instigation that Hezbollah came into being.
Does that constitute "evidence" that Israel supports Hezbollah and is also/likewise complicit in Wassergate (h/t Chris
@ #35)?
Or do you prefer that Israel's involvement be airbrushed away ?
@Pachyderm Pachyderma
La (w)hore Pakistan is most likely in bed with her pimp du jour, China and using the Pakis working for the US Congress to secure
data to be passed on to their handlers at ISI who in turn, pass it on to Beijing. And let's not forget the Saudis... I think you
are absolutely right that the Pakis passed on information to China and any other country willing to pay for it.
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing
that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo,
NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."
Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience
is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn
is pretty good.
"... These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads.
After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression
against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why
does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author)
..."
"... It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the
"biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia. The
Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar ..."
"... As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets
, phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare
visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded. ..."
"... , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the
history of the American press." But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations
pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton
last November. Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending
to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia. The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the
metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian
hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves
admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the
"trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has
been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that
the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom
of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for
more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
..."
The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats
and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top
Robert Parry
31
These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads.
After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the
aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto
Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is
from RI, not the author)
The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats
and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top. A savvy
Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they
alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats
still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.
Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have
established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties
to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the
opponents of those not favored.
But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals
and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting
the Left's disgust with President Trump.
People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts
have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more
difficult.
The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions
on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties,
passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.
The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan,
Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky
and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.
In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating
tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia
and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on
the table just where the neocons want it.
The Putin Obstacle
As for Russia, the
neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since
2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military
strike over
dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus
on Aug. 21, 2013.
Subsequent
evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate
to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.
While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would
benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking
on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed
states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to
shatter
the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.
For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations
with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb
and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S.
military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary
and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.
Punishing Russia
It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman
identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize
of removing Putin in Russia.
The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar
Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Victoria
Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including
neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.
Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were
swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade
earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the
violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with
U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.But it worked. For instance, the neocons
and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American
"peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the
Syrian government on speaking tours.Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially
flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian
affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to
kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.
Successful Propaganda
As part of this propaganda process, the
jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories
to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for
fear of being beheaded.
Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely
chemical attack,
the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous
pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the
alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the
other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.
Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has
said , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes
in the history of the American press."
But all these successes in the neocons'
"perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since
Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.
Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to
the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome
and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame
Russia.
The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called
Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of
the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence"
contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible
to trace.
So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the
government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs,
CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an
assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared
the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched
his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.
'Hand-Picked' Analysts
According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked"
from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama
left office. Their
Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that
it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us"
approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.
Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy
Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had
been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt
Romney.
The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America
as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate
stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky
Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by
the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies.
So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday
column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point
about Washington groupthink.
"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has
been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning
that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the
wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.
Lost Logic
But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling"
in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is
now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute
despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the
Russian government.
Neocon logic at its finest
Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions
bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:
"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's
behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election
has been outrageous."
However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents.
Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support
its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.
Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation
true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political
motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush's
Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene
in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.
But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial
pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers
at CNN and other cable outlets.
Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia
with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive
for more "regime change" wars.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect
of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear
war, more likely.
In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, "We told you so" that the U.S.
government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with
the nuclear agreement.
And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from
his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.
Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs
signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente
between Washington and Moscow.
In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and
coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party
hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of
nuclear war is being ignored.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban" ..."
"... I've been expecting this for some time. ..."
"... No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality. ..."
"... When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous. ..."
The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban"
I've been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without
proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.
Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively
Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over
the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus
found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy
and several other countries.
It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when
there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid,
could you?
And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide
revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won
that argument?
You probably don't. Stalin did.
Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic
schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when
he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!
The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense. I agree.
No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic
and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of
a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the
US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory'
flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step
to this new artificial reality.
When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and
on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there
so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our
big cities, it's too dangerous.
"... I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia, coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump. What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this: http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol ..."
"... When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war. ..."
"... Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP? ..."
"... One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated. ..."
Recently the U.S. congress legislated sanctions against the Russian Federation over alleged, but
completely unproven, interference in the U.S. presidential elections. The vote was nearly unanimous.
President Trump signed these sanctions into law. This was a huge and stupid mistake. He should
have vetoed them, even as a veto would likely be overturned. With his signing of the law Trump gave
up the ability to stay on somewhat neutral grounds towards Russia. This for no gain to him at all.
Sanctions by Congress are quasi eternal. The 1974
Jackson-Vanik amendment
restricted trade with the then "Communist block". It was supposed to press for Jewish emigration
from the Soviet Union to Israel. But even after the Soviet Union broke down in the early 1990s, after
the "communist block" had disappeared and long after any limits on emigrations had been lifted, the
law and its economic sanctions stayed in place. It was only lifted in 2012 and only to be immediately
replaced by the ludicrous Magnitsky
act which immediately established a new set of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its
interests.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped
by domestic U.S. policy issues. There is nothing Russia could have done to avoid them and there is
nothing it can do to have them lifted.
The new U.S. sanctions are not only directed against Russia but
against
any company and nation that cooperates with Russia over energy. This a little disguised attempt to
press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian
gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and
Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The
sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. (Additional partners in the pipeline
are Austria, France and the Netherlands.) Consequently 35% of Germans name the U.S. as a "major threat
to the country". Russia is seen as such by only 33%. This view is consistent with the
global perception .
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years. On August 2 the Russian
Prime Minister Medvedev
pointed
to the weakness of President Trump as the main reason for these
sanctions
:
The US President's signing of the package of new sanctions against Russia will have a few consequences.
First, it ends hopes for improving our relations with the new US administration. Second, it is
a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia . Third, the Trump administration has shown
its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This
changes the power balance in US political circles.
What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump ; the President is not
happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions
came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they
will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile,
the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic
approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has become a key part of both US foreign policy (which has occurred
many times) and domestic policy (which is a novelty).
...
Remember that Medvedev as Russian leader was, for a long time, the "hope" of the U.S. establishment.
He was perceived as more amenable than the Russian President Putin. Medvedev may well become president
again. But no U.S. media except the
New York Post took notice of his statement. That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can
no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to? Medvedev predicts:
The sanctions regime has been codified and will remain in effect for decades unless a miracle
happens. [...] [R]elations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense
regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international
bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major
international issues
Economically and politically Russia can and will cope with these sanctions, says Medvedev. But
can the U.S.?
The supreme global role of the U.S. depends on preventing a Euro-Asian alliance between, mainly,
Russia and China. In his latest "grand chessboard" piece
Toward a Global Realignment the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski - ruthless, amoral and capable
- asserts:
[I]t behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially
threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability,
and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach.
Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.
The U.S. foreign policy establishment has declared war on Russia. The confrontational position
towards China, which was en vogue under Obama, has noticeably changed. The Hillary Clinton/Barack
Obama "pivot to Asia" was cancelled. The anti-Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been
called off. Military provocations of China in the South Chinese Sea have been reduced and replaced
by
continuous provocations against Russia in eastern Europe. These steps follow the strategy Brzezinski
laid out.
Russia has historically proven to be resourceful in its policies. It is extremely resistant to
pressure. With the U.S. in a less hostile position against China, the behemoth will relentlessly
press its own advantage. Russia will soon be one of China's main sources of fossil energy and other
commodities. There is no major reason for China and Russia to disagree with each other. Under these
circumstances the hoped for Russian-Chinese split will not happen. Core European countries will resist
pressures that endanger their economies.
The Brzezinski strategy is clouded by a personal hate against Russia. (He is descendant of minor
noble Galician-Polish
family .) It is flawed as it enables China to establish its primacy. Even under Brzezinski's
framework a Russian-European-U.S. alliance against Chinese pursuit of hegemony would have been the
more logical way to go.
Hillary Clinton's strategy
to blame Russia for her lack of likability and her failure in the election now results in a major
failure of U.S. grand strategy. An organized White House policy could have prevented that but there
is no such thing (yet) under Trump.
I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end
up in an overall advantage for the United States.
Of course the NATO alliance and much of the EU will follow such ignorance and hostility to their
grave. Unless powerful nations such as Germany wakes up to what hardship this will place on them
and the daunting danger enlisted by such a corrupt policy, we are all in for dangerous times.
The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing.
Yep, as usual short-term thinking prevails in the US. It seems cheap and easy (to the US, although
not to Europe!) to sanction Russia as well as Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea while proclaiming
US supremacy. Because of the US dollar's role as reserve currency, the US can inflict heavy damage
on many countries. "Step out of the line," the US says with its sanctions, "and you'll be next
on our list."
Unfortunately, China saw that it definitely was next on the list and the best way to alleviate
that situation was to partner with Russia to combine China's growing economic power with Russia's
military, energy, and diplomatic strengths, thus providing an impressive barrier against US unilateral
actions. The one thing the US cannot overcome--a united China and Russia -- is now in place, with
Europe just barely starting to wake up to the reality that it MIGHT not want to exclusively depend
on the US.
Russia and China exhibit long term thinking while the US follows the CEO mantra of short term
results, damn the long term effect on the company (or country).
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon will need to buy up to 18 more Russian-built RD-180 engines
to power rockets carrying U.S. military satellites into space over the next six years or so, Deputy
Defense Secretary Robert Work said in an interview on Friday.
[....]
Work said the United States needed to ensure there were at least "two affordable and reliable
means into space." He added the RD-180 would be needed only during what he described as a transition
period of new domestic rocket engine development.
"We just don't see any way you can get a new engine in anything less than six years," Work
said.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Let's think about what this means. The USSA currently possesses something like a score of these
Russian RD-180 rocket engines (they are liquid fueled -- kerosene/liquid oxygen -- engines, which
may be observed at the base of rockets). Since the USSA has physical possession of them, reverse
engineering should be a cake walk. So why the six year hold-up?
Since circa 1971 the USSA has been gutting its technology-based productional system. And since
circa 2000, Russia has been frantically consolidating its own. Of course a country may have a
large GDP and yet have a severely fragmentary productional base, if it's exporting bananas, or
technology that requires imported components, and this is just what the USSA has been doing. Because
of this productional fragmentation it cannot produce RD-180 rocket engines even though all of
the technical details of this engine are well known. It cannot even produce a quality strike fighter
jet, as illustrated in the case of the F-35.
And because the Russians have been consolidating their technological productionality while
the USSA has been fragmenting its own, the sanctions have turned out to be a tremendous boon to
the Russians.
The sanctions are all about symbolism, which the USSA is obsessed with; they are not about
gaining any advantages. Russia is the party that will reap all the advantage. The Beloved Leaders
of the USSA prove once again to be insane.
#1 "The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing."
Maybe. Maybe not. In the words of the ever-sage George Harrison, "All Things Must Pass." Anyone
for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms? Re: realignment; BRICS,
onward and upward. May the IMF and its war machine have financial competition and lose their monopolistic
squeeze on empire.
Quote: " I fail to see how the current strategy... could ever end up in an overall advantage for
the United States."
The advantage of the United States...!!?? What's that got to do with anything? The US government
is there to service the interests of Wall Street and The Israel Lobby/Neocon/International Zionists.
Everyone surely recognises this now. Get used to it.
It sounds dramatic but all I see is The Swamp's "Let's do SOMETHING, even if it's stupid" megalomaniacs
enthusiastically outing themselves. I was wondering when and how Trump was going to out them but
they've 'cleverly' decided to do it for him. I'm confident that Trump saw this coming and will
turn it to his MAGA advantage.
I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia,
coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump.
What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is
the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this:
http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol
"huge and stupid mistake" is too kind. I think it was idiotic of Trump. What's even more depressing
is that Trump is claiming "national unity" as his reason for signing. He'll get no "national unity"
for this - I suppose the Republican leaders have played him for a fool, and Trump was dumb enough
to believe it.
It's secondarily depressing that the media was claiming that Trump had little choice. So, the
media was employed in manipulating Trump, both before and after the fact (of his signing). Did
it not occur to Trump that this exculpatory nonsense might be "fake news"?
"As Paul Craig Roberts points out in his article, there were a number of strategies that could
have been taken by Trump. First, he should have vetoed the bill. At worst, if Congress overrode
his veto, Congress would bear responsibility for the political fallout or the radioactive fallout
if it comes to that.
Second, in the lead up to the veto, Trump could have brought his case to the American people.
He could have laid it all out in the open, pointing out that Congress, both misinformed and eaten
up with special interest money, was endangering America's way of life and possibly even life itself
the world over. He could have stated plainly that the interests who own Congress and who are working
through Congress are now marching the United States to World War Three. He could have even told
them to go watch The Day After with their families and ask themselves if they think the potential
costs would be worth it. He could have done any number of things explaining why he was vetoing
the bill and then he could have vetoed it. But he didn't. "
Somewhat off/topic, though if the Russia nonsense had been debunked more competently by the Trump
Administration, maybe Trump wouldn't have felt compelled to sign the sanctions bill. "Ray McGovern
Explains How The DNC Hack Was Used To Cover-Up The Election Stolen From Bernie Sanders"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vte-uSyQhKw
The Trump Administration should take McGovern's counsel often, but is probably too dumb/manipulated
to do so.
"Anyone for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms?"
Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to
assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters
will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster.
The only answer is to abolish the two-party system by eliminating the spoiler effect. Strategic
hedge simple score voting would do that. Nothing else, including "ranked choice" voting ("IRV")
will work. This is vital to understand!
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions
are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran
alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.
I don't know how far EU will go to fight back, but their alliance is breaking through all stitches,
and US effectively expedited EU rapprochement to the East. It was bound to happen sometime in
the future due to US decline and the rise of SCO/BRICS, but now calculation has changed - it will
happen soon.
"I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever
end up in an overall advantage for the United States."
unless the USG itself is nothing more at this moment than a platform for committing "crimes
against the peace," foreign & domestic. or is there some other motivation than domination of rivals,
w/not the slightest hint of "partnership"? there is nothing the USG can do except use its (overrated
& rapidly declining) military advantage to offset its steadily declining economic supremacy, w/all
the dangers of nuclear war from the morally insane running this country.
the task of people in the US is to distract the eye of Sauron (the one on the pyramid on the
dollar bill) in any way it can, until Mordor, Inc. just collapses. and that requires some serious
troublemaking here, massive national strikes, burning down the pentagon & the like, which don't
seem too likely.
@15 So long as Congress critters get to sit in office indefinitely they have the opportunity to
build their criminal fiefdoms and become available for bribery. Why do they need some legislative
track record? Either they vote for sane things or they don't. And if they're insane, they get
tossed the next election cycle. And even if they're great it is better to get fresh blood in every
few years.
A more logical solution would be to institute a draft of legislators from ordinary citizens
(who maybe need to meet certain educational benchmarks just so they're mentally capable of doing
the job--something our Congress of idiot lawyers is usually unable to do). You get drafted to
serve your nation in Congress, get a nice check, and legislate for your fellow citizens while
discussing their concerns with other regular citizens and then take your honorable discharge back
into civilian life. When you have people who want power and allow them to be elected by other
people who want the power to manipulate the people who write the laws it is necessarily going
to end in disaster. Get people who don't really want to be there and shift their composition every
few years and regulatory capture by industry becomes impossible.
Also, Congress mostly needs to spend time removing laws and consolidating laws. There isn't
really a lot of reason to pass new laws every term other than to look busy. Note they have done
absolutely nothing this term save sanction Russia and the world continues as normal.
The graft will be enormous. Billion$. The esteemed Senator McCain right in the thick of it.
Typical ridiculous doublespeak in that article - and the players - John McCain, Boeing, Lockheed
Martin, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings and sanctions
on two particular individuals in the Russian Space Agency.
Aug 1, 2017
Meanwhile, NASA has only 12 employees in Russia now, according to a tally in the Washington Post.
They are supporting those rides for American astronauts to the space station. America has been
paying Russia $81 million per seat for rides to the station while it awaits completion of U.S.
crew carriers being built by Boeing and SpaceX.
Add the history of cooperation, the interest in going forward by top Russian space officials,
and the money involved and the space program seems out of the threat zone for now. If Russia does
sever the relationship, it will be a sign of a truly serious breech between the two countries.
Perhaps a secret life in government, a spy since WWII, a secret life lived, but not ever fully-vetted,
secret knowledge and involvement in Dallas 1963 to later become a pivotal US President to invade
Iraq, and still today, a life not ever fully vetted, would give you pause that the answer lies
in the simple abolition of the 2 party system?
China is making well-planned, strategic moves - Silk Road, Rail Bridge to Russia, Base in Djibouti.
All excellent. Nothing ham-handed, self-defeating, short-term, knee-jerk and stupid.
,BLOCKQUOTE>"Indeed the more I think about this bizarre sanctions law the more I wonder whether
the impeachment scenario I have just outlined may have been the very scenario that it was intended
to engineer." ...
"In other words the sanctions law may have been put together by the President's opponents in
Congress – who include Republicans as well as Democrats – with the actual intention of provoking
him into vetoing it so as to set up the conditions for his impeachment by Congress on an issue
where Congress is united against him."
"If so then the President – heeding the advice of his lawyers – has sidestepped the trap whilst
putting himself in a strong position to challenge the law in the US Supreme Court when the right
moment comes."
The globalists boogieman is Putin and Team, at least for the next four or more years. He became
their target for displeasure long ago, thus, he must pay. Globalists don't give a rats about Trump's
agenda BECAUSE the Globalists bought Congress off long ago...THEY OWN IT. Congress stopped working
for the good folks of the United States long ago and for heavens sake they're not all of a sudden
going to start working for us now. Just sayin...
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that
the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them. Those wringing their
hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable
because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First"
is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert
means. As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits
of restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will
play a big part in post-Putin politics. If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road
transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western
candidates will gain much support.
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were
shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.
Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))
Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is
idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import
overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate
the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if the Germans were to
cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia anyway.
So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.
Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement,
which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing, including
I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.
Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its discretion.
If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he would be overridden
for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely. From there, it's completely
realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good many Republicans would go along
with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*
I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that people
read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully. But in
his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the Supreme Court
if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements of the sanctions
bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.
It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it open
to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand now - while
the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the sanctions both fail
and help to tear the EU apart.
* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece agrees
that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support impeachment, and
adds:
"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's
term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real' Republican
in his place."
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was entirely
predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."
Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the
meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.
As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm
not sure if such a term for his style even exists.
But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I don't
see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing the legislation
makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines being drawn in the
sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision making these days is murky
at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving' as being part of his character.
Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.
And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one navigate
the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders are out to
destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get their way so they
are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they are wielding when
they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I haven't read the vote
tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted against it).
My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction and
maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v Trump/Pence.
Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an
option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their construction.
At least I think it's Boing.
If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry
about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent
groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately
thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is
in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid,
but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands from the White House and
Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned a hard coup
isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.
Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of government
very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto, and a veto would
only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation of powers. As matters
stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.
If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and
bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence supporting
legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.
He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due the
impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute and you've
got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll numbers sinking).
On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts instead of caving and earning
the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect he might have gotten a little
respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept. I agree with b.
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead
to?
When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep
in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous
delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions
taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war.
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing;
I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN
(RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with notations stating
its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this latest RP label attempt
and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions
into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election
cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful
God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job
description?? Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of
you." Remember he has already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his
own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that
every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC
interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the
opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will
contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will
be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North
Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then
being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of
Evil" or "the Free World"
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number
of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has anyone
else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military power block
to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see
the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will
repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid
of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?
Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing
- gruel for the knuckleheads.
There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger
for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President
Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility
he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning
from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat from constituents
for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote was due to many congresscritter's
assumption that Trump would do just that.
For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links
to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing
to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in
its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it will break the mirror before
allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber to
the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave
if he knew how his American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.
>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office.
Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.
>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists
were phonies but Trump is the real deal?
>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly,
Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.
>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media
dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better
chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see:
NYPost: Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.
>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close
to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary
by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama was foreign
born.
>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?
>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek
to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health
helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.
>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel
the scaremongering over Russia:
> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in
2013) and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);
> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he
did;
> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking
Sessions; etc.
> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best
way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a few
changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from the new
sanctions.
I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough,
nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get hit,
then something may happen.
With Trumps amendments to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master rather
than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.
Berry Friesen@43 - "...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto..."
Depends. From Mercouris:
With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say
that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the integrity
of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was therefore guilty of
committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against Russia, the US's main
international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds
they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.
Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves the
definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere
the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could
be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition
and would vote for impeachment on that basis.
This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the thesis
that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris points out,
the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is entirely up to Congress
, not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand up in US courts
and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.
An impeachment resolution
HR 438 has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing Trump's
firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's sponsor acknowledges
it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be amended with additional articles
of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one assumes all Democrat lower house representatives
vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it.
It has not been submitted to a vote, but will when the representatives think the charges are numerous
and strong enough that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily
a Democrat vs. Republican fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a
much more obedient replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous
vote for the sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching: "Trump must go!
They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks credible
and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding the veto as
the only thing Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment against Trump.
The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of manufactured evidence
to confuse the little people and raise doubt.
FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with Russia.
It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a side-effect)
blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to impeach Trump.
If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!
If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an indictment
(perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges are true. In
any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which will be used to
strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with elections. A veto to
the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not 'prove' an impeachable offense
by itself.
An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to
interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if they
prove the thesis by law or logic.
The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement
lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove sufficient.
They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only 'evidence' that
will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking... Trump Must Go!
I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make much
difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more than,
say, a microsecond or two.
Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:16:36 PM |
60 Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM |
61
karlof1 56
Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only
writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in
MSM.
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear warhead.
And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be bothered
to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one with the clear,
open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which will forever stand
as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible move
for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic ties. It's
probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a third of Europe
to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier when that kind of
moves would've been far less costly.
While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time,
probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA,
the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA
actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far
right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so
the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former
Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a
flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether
had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian
invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two
days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing
Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was
actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where
each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population
reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his
government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely
lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which
also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext
to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the
USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a
reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US
economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in
addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered
huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were
closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along
with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the
end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have
no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters
inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully
opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.
Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans
would vote for in November.
Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:
"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed
separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."
As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing
Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000
dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.
If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a
Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of
the Donbass.
Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun
of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.
Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after
Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.
Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John
McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"
Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.
But about this new arms deal questions arise.
As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot
down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why
would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians
on both sides?
The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.
"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he
withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next
year's presidential election."
Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still
in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians
the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.
This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash
the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.
Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?
Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him
of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger
questions.
Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These
are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker,
the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.
A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker
believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk
are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.
A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon
McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his
family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:
"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for
Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion
that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring
Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home
in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are
unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and
break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a
just settlement.
Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties
among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and
withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?
What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting
in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.
The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.
@reiner
Tor
"Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator." Well said.
Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear
not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless
stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.
What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can
bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what
we regard as a just settlement
.
On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that
Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with
Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field,
where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international
competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under
pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And
once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in
Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed
as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and
this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting
event.
And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of
containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's
actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World
hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR.
This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will
cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it
.
The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing
it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that
plan succeeded
Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the
parties involved.
@reiner
Tor
It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic
Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might
well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously
misunderestimated the situation there.
I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their
guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of
firing those guns but hey, shit happens!
Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been
backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is
concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much
responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA
can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.
Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and
fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation
dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American
provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no
problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make
official, its support for the NDF.
As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the
world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the
problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about
fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained.
Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.
As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in
bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take
losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not
appearing to react strongly enough.
As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down
the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant
leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over
the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national
interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.
If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian
Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this
matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this
point that I have raised
look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a
bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.
But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the
USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that
why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service"
spectacles at athletic events?
I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true
conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only
because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this
country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the
lawful territory of the United States
More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in
nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more
steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.
In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will
bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers
coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.
1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers
(aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern
Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops
in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this
baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations
from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are
deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.
2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of
any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics
of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter,
of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak
of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and
with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in
general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire
consequences for both US and its clients.
putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow
NK to be taken over.
It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming
majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined
West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West
(US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's
"scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her
20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming
empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major
reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because
they are incompetent.
If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction
of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American
stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the
hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin
wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated
EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU
wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking
Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has
two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody.
That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at
home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will
destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown
it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a
liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to
get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are
incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly
misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US
hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the
EU!
"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons?
[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD
FROM THE BEGINNING]?"
Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or
departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his
initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the
other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is
what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it
doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the
members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the
Clinton and Obama political mafia.
The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine
Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump
should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and
just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in
Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US
to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites
are.
Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military
bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and
provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political
leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although
they are thin on the ground.
@JL
As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a
temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk
II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E.,
temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco,
and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The
proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air,
or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground
attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the
request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course,
Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently
IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen
conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.
@Wally
You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global
hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign
policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming
Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas
and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling
disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get
out, so I'm wasting my breath.
This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the
10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.
last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.
Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed
and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we
regard as a just settlement.
It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in
the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and
they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″
shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have
been asking about their kids.
The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may
not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but
it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.
@Taras77
"The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates
"
This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large.
McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus
insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable
Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open
fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of
profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become
all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/
"McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not
America."
'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction,
and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.
The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty
little country" is doomed. Excellent.
"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish
pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant
promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives
the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to
question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"?
Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie
might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle
fabrication to crumble."
- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such
time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the
concerned parties
but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International
Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now
destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The
charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling
zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.
A precedent would be the French protectorates
you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore
Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the
Donbas using forces located in Russian;
the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked,
shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world
with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were
right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the
ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign
borders!!
'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'
blah, blah, blah
What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if
they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel
Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that
happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east
that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down
like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.
@neutral
That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care,
but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such
a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany
or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.
My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right
as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if
the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports,
showing what is truly important in life
@Andrei
Martyanov
Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources
required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".
Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and
those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table",
in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and
openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for
Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in
a manner that will allow them to demonize it.
As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance
are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C.
"national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.
Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of
his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national
security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.
What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then
use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all
what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them
to demonize it.
It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried
before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary,
may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present
state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think
the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale
offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but
political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very
short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics.
Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far
East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun
intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I
think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So,
concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.
@Ludwig
Watzal
"Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his
agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."
Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by
"accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole
campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran
with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over
to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates
(or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).
What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the
maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is
seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in
making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily
reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be
building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities
to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf
countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any
attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations.
Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out
war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game?
who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil
war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.
@Michael
Kenny
The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern
countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll
rightly cut and run.
USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece
CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking
Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..
It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader
than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a
supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme
crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can
see.
@Rurik
The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when
a previous
puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the
CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html
"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's
fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the
time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was
president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e.,
Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security"
contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist
under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically
disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit
that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to
participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package)
and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue
from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas
overlord."
Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re
"sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US
corporations.
Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?
technicalities.
Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis
Brandeis & his claque.
Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus,
pater et fil
plus their acolytes and
syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish
string-pullers who maneuvered FDR
as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to
protecting the interests of the American people.
Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The
Only Language they Understand,"
http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/
, Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is
surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel,
demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that
Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.
When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall
describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists:
it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in
other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of
the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.
@Alden
"Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"
Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than
perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.
I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's
apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.
"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as
Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up
of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid
investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million
court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang .
Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals
finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national
security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for
infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."
Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet
he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He
didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance.
And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."
@Quartermaster
You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.
Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia
troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the
Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as
yet.
And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along
you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in
Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats –
no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions
invading Donbass.
You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the
scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll
end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to
fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly
do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former
compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.
they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian"
oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down.
Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down
(which would explain the machine gun holes).
this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on
will say 'this video has been removed'
@reiner
Tor
Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed
before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election
or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their
minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit
and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another
Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our
times.
Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there
may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.
Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours.
We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe
without our being in the know.
Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in
peace.
Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder,
who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story
on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the
legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson
of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder studied
economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with
reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for
Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team
at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish
banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage
is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused
on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares
scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir
Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice
he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a
corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that
made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an
arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy
of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia
in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three
companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not
clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia
in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully,
made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during
and since that time, though there have been
skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale
to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman,
always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians
and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully
constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's
mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he
died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly
after he had a heart attack. A
subsequent investigation
ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received
medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents
sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer,
which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation
of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable
the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to
how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other
than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered
by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used
to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that
contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence
officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable
care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided.
It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been
the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience
perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business
activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia
and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain,
Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what
the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted
should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And
then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing
to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are
making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube
running away from a
server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov
Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting
tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.
Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who
tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".
During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially
a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but
this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia?
Here is pretty interesting and educational reading
"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US
Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running
a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time
was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond
Safra."
His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that
some influential British structures were behind his activities.
In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more
useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and
already started talking.
It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something
you now must decipher.
"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than
it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the
Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".
There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not
want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder
and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never
come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom
and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and
THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This
entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers.
And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian
oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.
the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist
shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to
destroy Nationalist Russia
And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy
of the West.
I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia
or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely:
Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that
concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people.
Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human
rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.
But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced
with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention
them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly
or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and
their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.
And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing
another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names,
I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.
The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream
press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during
the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state,
change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of
this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.
Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized
Jewry.
In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish
Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's
"number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor
Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust
Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed
Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.
Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary
of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian
president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his
best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.
"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes
that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing
bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU.
He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.
Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even
more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened
to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.
You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available
some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved
financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise
selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the
(dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being
systematically murdered off
Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that
were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the
West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last
century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here,
fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.
It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West,
where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous
atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.
That's how it seems to me anyways.
(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)
I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and
peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines
the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio
In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against
war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached
Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western
narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough
that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .
Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky
Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim
McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named
after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel
and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.
During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle
– published on November 27.
"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward
in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution.
People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern
said.
When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my
friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."
He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel
from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record.
I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.
@Anonymous
As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?
A: Which one is the Jew?"
Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying
and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth
into a blaspheme of some sort.
Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a
Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after
Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians
he is responsible for murdering?
@Anonymous
Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?
The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good
mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it
appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle
also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew.
Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that
neither of them are Jews.
A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director,
1981-1987)
If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean
what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like
every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security
of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure
the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .
Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.
I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish
or anything.
That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her.
Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy
John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.
@Greasy
William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew
who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar
serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.
@Wizard
of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as
such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally
back in the 90s and 00s.
@Boris
N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia,
as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.
However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken,
incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during
his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who
salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all
of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being
underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which
had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's
orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.
Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity.
As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries,
including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies.
Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the
Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,
which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.
@Wizard
of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically
Jewish"."
Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The
fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe
that fact.
@Eileen
Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not
Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian,
so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?
I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too
disreputable.
A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of
associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least
weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like
from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out
of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt
it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?
Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but
clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS
controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official
Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately
the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the
same duo, by the way).
Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former
KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as
a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere
and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving
around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of
the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think
Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by
the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in
fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.
Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything
is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power.
Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely
public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy
president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call
him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How
can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again
we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections
with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.
The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come
from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures
(usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks).
And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands
of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is
a second (true?) capital of Russia.
So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must
we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.
Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further
yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do
not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?)
documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them
to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively
thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their
real goal is just to hide the real truth.
from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant,
while ours is being systematically murdered off
As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians
have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural
resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme
poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia
outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country,
in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference.
This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia
seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly
complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were
born or live there.
And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire
country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western
companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore
havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption
is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why
the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half
of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the
other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin
oligarchic clique.
And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly
exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial
cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):
Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
High Middle 20% – $400-$600
Upper 5% – $600-$1200
In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but
they comprise barely 15% of the population.
And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.
I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where
70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with
the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average
pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small
amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.
And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia
is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population
after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close
to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage
of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims
and Muslim immigrants.
@Eileen
Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been
created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above,
Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up
to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev
and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted.
Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned,
rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from
the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They
buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have
bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money.
The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian
wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.
And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia
is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people".
It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th
century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect
for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture
and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.
However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You
imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly
believe there are many better alternatives.
@Boris
N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more
than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact,
it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other
unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread
drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak
of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's
obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money
at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit
families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same
would be true for the average Russian today.
We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi
and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of
Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's
how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild
boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the
fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies,
and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.
Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people
have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it
all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish
'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild-
to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around
is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man.
A giant on the world's stage.
He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping
to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for
Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and
tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter
and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.
Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was
wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with
a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands,
as Gadhafi had done.
That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption
is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back
their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations..
Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.
How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans
may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage
being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned
into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of
personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics
and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.
That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't
all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.
I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack
of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do
not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even
might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people
will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue,
like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better
"spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means
a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about
the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.
We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .
1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's
deal.
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having
publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent
the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not
some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would
be quick to tell you.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted
Obama's deal.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted
in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem
having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.
again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the
default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to
play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's
like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case
may be, but sure as shit don't like them.
Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists
no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West
all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not
Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was
talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your
quote!
But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the
middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians
or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists,
who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.
@Boris
N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount
of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have
at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being
living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this
out.
@Rurik
I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners
simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not
live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why
I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream
one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes
or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who
love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because
no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices
(I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their
own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally
different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there
is no false dichotomy like in the West.
And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the
Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always
means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it,
and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I
understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way,
so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something
is white.
On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously
do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic
individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but
whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and
know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive
interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be
true).
Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho
Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow
Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of
the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is
owned by Gazprom).
What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand
that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right,
and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed
to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion,
be it right or wrong.
Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed
by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better
land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there
is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to
Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow,
you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to
Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).
@Greasy
William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply
because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different
small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call
them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may
call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions
about the past and the current affairs.
Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran,
Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since
the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that
the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished
war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as
good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here,
most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not
care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly
internal problems.
I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic
view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full
stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically
have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy,
when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that
if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?
It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means,
they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving
as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in
a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable
result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor
but "spiritual" San Salvador?
Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual"
San Salvador?
But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually
healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern
for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.
I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed
on their asses.
And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples
of national states, of what Russia must become.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the
different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite
rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have
ever read and I really liked it a lot.
The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the
West.
well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either
'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.
Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's
this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.
I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite
way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it
as something is white.
I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't
mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies,
and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).
When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot
down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination
of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction
of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling
him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the
line.
but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn,
believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both
the places and I can compare
It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia
and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)
I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But
today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and
chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the
trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country
on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the
Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone
else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people
for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too
expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more
cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the
wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest
men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation.
(it's what the do ; )
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her
hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was
an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed
on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he
played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten
billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing
to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.
But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the
West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat
to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death
struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.
It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia,
and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia
great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to
take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.
The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia
public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.
I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians
are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't
them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.
The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I
have said, hate Putin's guts.
how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?
From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things
must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.
here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist
Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable.
As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.
having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.
This from an article on Russia today:
Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the
fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like
Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox
Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we
are addicted to a beautiful soul.
more:
Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian
people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country.
Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt
to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish
Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population
of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine?
Is this not a double standard?
.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become
one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and
we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.
I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius
to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named
by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who
bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.
Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked
it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it
has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine
that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.
I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the
other discredited western "news" outlets.
the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I
don't like Putin'.
To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does
not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but
one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other
a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult
to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just
one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.
I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe
the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated
on many issues.
It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.
OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado,
or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot
not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global
political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters.
But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them
both.
But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption
and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.
Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information.
You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person,
Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know
more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you
might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government,
if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people,
I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They
have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.
And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as
like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements
of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position.
And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered
a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave
her hope,
Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation
of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team"
are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things
in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has
done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his
deceit, how naive.
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas
tattooed on their asses.
If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority.
Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those
Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where
the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent
elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state,
with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while
a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the
West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake
of "earning" money.
Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said
Israel was taken as an example I meant something like
that .
lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the
Russian nationalists are on about
(they love Putin ; )
No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting
site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.
The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and
constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not
in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on
July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was
adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a
certainty.
... ... ...
The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has
developed a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy
thanks to the omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain
intimidation.
... ... ...
Extraterritoriality
The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche,
summed up the situation as follows:
"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American
legislation whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic
and political imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always
in the United States, that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the
best intentions in the world since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power',
that is a country that can only do good."
Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the
United States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange
American law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having
an American subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based
server, or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international
enterprise can avoid. In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping
fine of nearly nine billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with
countries under U.S. sanctions. The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But
because they dealt in dollars, payments transited by way of the United States, where diligent
computer experts could find the needle in the haystack. European banks are faced with the
choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of restrictions and punishments before a
verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate lawyers, and entering into
the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar to Europeans. Just
like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge the huge European
enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.
Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high
speed trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of
corruption (probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its
electricity branch to General Electric.
The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S.
firms to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole
range of U.S. intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are
engaged in commercial espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, devoted to this task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30
million. The comparable office in Paris employs five people.
This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose
European banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning
investments in the vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.
This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down
national legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone
else for anything, with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the
United States.
... ... ...
Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and
eliminate competitors. We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."
This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of
"taxation without representation" exercised by the United States against its European
satellites. They committee members all agreed that something must be done.
That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission
chairman, Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth
Guigou (a leading Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to
inexperienced newcomers recruited into President Emmanuel Macron's
République en
marche
party. The newcomers are having a hard time finding their way in parliamentary life
and have no political memory, for instance of the Rapport on Extraterritoriality.
As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings
by approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the
United States.
However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on
forever.
Diana Johnstone is co-author of From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone (Clarity
Press).
She can be reached at
[email protected]
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations
in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which
appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against
Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie
Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling
when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and
possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that
these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting
the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and
Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?
Let's try to figure out what is going on here.
First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators
have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any
US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to
achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential
lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans
in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single
one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power
of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the
"Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list.
Any name on it jump at you yet?
One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly
true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also
reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But
a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved
in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that
important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the
Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.
"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel
as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to
be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby
is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests.
Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific
subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share
in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost
the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the
folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his
entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".
Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven,
they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which
allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually
read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre
individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating
to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified
when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.
I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.
First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables"
voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next,
the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him,
but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the
Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in
all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda
inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for
the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo --
So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir
ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity
is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control,
they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions
(even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In
other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves
about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything
by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.
Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction
to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.
First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even
the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all
these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing:
instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce
the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation
for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last
year. Why now?
Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping"
for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even
"in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.
People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB,
the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked
in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network
of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the
USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive
part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part.
This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost,
PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because
the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally
considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb
level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were
amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their
colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally,
he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume
that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst
in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully
arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new
measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump
wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which
would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has
now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage
the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.
It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures
when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but
which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out"
between Russia and the USA.
And Trump's reaction?
He declared that he would sign the bill.
Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état
against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.
With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up
on Trump.
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump
might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic
initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance
of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real
achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing
which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed
to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were
each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.
For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".
Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians
will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US
diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation
has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees
in Russia is just a first step.
Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi
that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone
fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны
(nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept
here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki
to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning"
in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.
Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict
that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out
of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile
strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against
Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy
as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.
The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding
Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example
of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic
closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin
amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin
making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more
adult partner than The Donald.
But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth
is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a
lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to
be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be
strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring
down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.
Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting.
Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them
have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now
is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button
by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better
than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop
Witches' Sabbath in
Washington DC.
I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River
in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful
sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of
their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to
love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live
here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if
only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict,
none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in
comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to
lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid,
degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if
this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several
quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of
the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and
1990s.
[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!),
a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person
has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or,
at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged!
I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them
and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between
the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends,
allies and even brothers.]
Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine
has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on
whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped
potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will
most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.
But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling
down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished
from
The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)
Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now
put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the
current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely
nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created
this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know
why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and
calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return
to?
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.
That is no small part of why Trump got elected.
Antagonize Russia to what purpose?
Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps
and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?
Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?
The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links
to Fusion GPS is true.
Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks
like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.
The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.
We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me
as incompetent in his other business dealings.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Your trolling comment is offensive
"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who
want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal
government."
I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.
I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile.
I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war
with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying
for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.
I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to
do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.
@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break
for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called
it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had
more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.
I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very
last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same.
Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell
off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want
an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties
and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the
Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out,
one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity,
which must be broken.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far
as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to?
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also
points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape
from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy
seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality,
especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be
a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy.
This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between
the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European
countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty
to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and
gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched
and not slashed.
As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No
president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the
restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or
he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear
that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.
Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent
foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with,
since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through
with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same
view. Dmitry Trenin:
"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class
at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances
one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue
to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere:
in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."
It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either
come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.
Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising
this very interesting and very pregnant issue:
"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign
policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles
of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."
This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.
However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down
the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate
in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."
The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have
a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate
in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless
concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a
world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling
class.
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot
of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.
@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment
was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of
the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.
Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because
he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that
Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is
different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect
change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.
Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is
increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump.
Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee
admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy
stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly)
singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally
well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon
propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.
Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama.
How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points
out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from
the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems
to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially
with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.
And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a
good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary
importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things
I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes
in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning
some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move
infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall
"incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.
As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back
for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He
contradicts himself.
Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional
expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of
war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be
seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.
Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all
others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed
later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so
sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant
dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able
to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling
class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula
and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.
" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."
And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan
Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living
very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous
profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world
order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries
in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural
Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai
from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the
Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the
National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run
is also most profitable in the long run.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact
that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part
and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day)
of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev,
Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back
at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white.
A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that
the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature:
the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and
move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of
50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently.
Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much
bigly. All will be well --
http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated
and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring
production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .
@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate
to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the
title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that
girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then,
why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.
@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall"
1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there
all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was
willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years.
(If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)
In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National
Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the
"known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle)
is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive
proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the
neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc.,
you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia
agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort,
CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the
anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly,
has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the
neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been
providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties
and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China
lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know,
and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long
seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold,
Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence
of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying
with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)
That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee)
are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it
to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely,
the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires
have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires,
including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party
of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money
much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And
what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide
to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks
pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.
If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review,
check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If
your mind has been closed, let it open.
"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond.
And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are.
@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock
Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:
Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election
of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous
dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama
See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't
know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound
like a kindergartner on LSD.
"I would have called it stupid"
Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're
smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.
I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as
at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.
Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's
plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the
chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.
@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national
"Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill
As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members
seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out.
He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing
more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.
There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other
damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be
under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.
I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been
the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.
The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the
loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable
jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media)
just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not
the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government
of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .
Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are
moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these
events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay
nt bother to inform America .
Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being
forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social
fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially
. Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic
policies .
America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle
down on dictatorship.
"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"
There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+
months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner,
not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years
with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this
treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having
enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even
in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to
madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.
"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and
I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly
crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as
US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing
into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change
in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the
Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever
comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates
Nikki Haley's open warmongering).
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more
than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated
by lobbyists via the media.
See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:
The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these
sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents
more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being
manipulated by lobbyists via the media.
Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.
It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).
The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst
in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go
on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be
a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying
will be done over there in their estimation.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby
in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.
And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked
by utter crackpots.
It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the
head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.
Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have
much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get
contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used.
Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.
But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.
Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain
the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that?
I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump
look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal
is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments
between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump.
With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only
thing standing in the way of One World Government.
I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of
Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the
only thing standing in the way of One World Government."
Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder
attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would
be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour
A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused
with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China
will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced
to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer
and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while
US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system
of the world will force this merger .
Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will
be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here
and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will
be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental
underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen
will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness
will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness
will not disappear from daily discourse .
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything
is a stroke of genius.
These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize
these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.
Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?
I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to
die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.
@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the
risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough,
so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's
ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the
wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking
Russia's ass will be a manageable high"
That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel
combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be.
We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never
Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism
update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.
Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively
and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming
into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality,
or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that
this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence
also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man
availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!
Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength
than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent
temporary advantage.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more
of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse
Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best
reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on
their collective asses permanently. Sometime.
Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but
nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger
and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals
on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who
was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as
spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.
@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside
Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the
Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had
absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans
who created this situation completely ex nihilo
So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's
enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't
know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions
and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the
better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before
Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should
return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America
or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on
that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing
statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing
to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed
nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby
has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask
the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.
I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has
nothing to do with Israel.
This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the
interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd
and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the
quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of
their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy
is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?
After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes
as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should
be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still
believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional
parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman,
"To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."
Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.
Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in
the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent
the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US
ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one
common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.
These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress
lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.
Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish
outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex
than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have
cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of
culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.
The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon"
is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of
Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!
@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to
Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to
hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia
white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.
I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined
up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means
of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!
And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real
interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference
to that Senate vote?
Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of
what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your
explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from
which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high
proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected
in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its
dug in positions.
The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as
that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.
The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and
the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the
artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity
to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having
strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives
on Capitol Hill.
Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm
II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification.
What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous
consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout
of WWII.
By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force
the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done
at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated
economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.
As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters
to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of
the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership
of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should
spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension
in the neocons media complex.
Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence
of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently
Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free
from the dominance of the neocons.
This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats'
rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard
blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia,
so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters
were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.
Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto
the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and
can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who
is gonna make him?
"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done
absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single
US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"
There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation.
The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain
hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good",
then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy,
stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.
The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of
relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.
"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination
to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).
@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect
on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at
all in their policies."
Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for
Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more
of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head
for an eye response. Than aggression stops.
Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for
an eye response. Than aggression stops.
I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major
break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have
an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington
is doing now: committing suicide.
During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty
of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being
and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken
over the federal government.
I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking
on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt
representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't
seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.
Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:
In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included
a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.
"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior
by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said
Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow
the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our
allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."
So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian
"subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.
@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus
America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments
other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered
by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene,
so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving
Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure
on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of
death.
Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome
"Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars,
hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare
us such merry excitement.
Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force
intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out.
This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that
better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare'
activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional
war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees
of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted
states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths –
its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft
and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information
and to employ considerable cyber abilities
Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to
Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia
should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they
expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it
thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the
other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across
the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing
on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The
Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it
fed.
The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE.
Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get
this.
The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies
from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control"
of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control
over its real one and only rival – China.
South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy
that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.
The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on
the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.
While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle
East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years
of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.
Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting
with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are
only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.
Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive
strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's
opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding
ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as
much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how
to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898,
sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a
balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For
the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.
The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils
of the expansion.
If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.
And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard.
Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..
"... Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new sanctions? ..."
"... It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of private profit why they take the decisions that they do. ..."
"... This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia playing this out? ..."
PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy
industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this
bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups.
And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which
is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy
companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that
they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the
United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes
are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US
representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3]
voted
against it. You can see
the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations
between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the
United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.
... ... ...
RT:
Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff
there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new
sanctions?
PCR: I think the Russian leadership now has to finally abandon its cherished illusion that
it can reach accommodation with Washington. I have made clear for a long time now, the only way
Russia can reach accommodation with Washington is to surrender and to accept American hegemony.
Now, if the Russian government continues with this illusion that it can reach an accommodation,
I think it is guilty of a very dangerous delusion. I think this should be a wake-up call for
Russia that the United States Congress has now made the principal goal of American foreign
policy conflict with Russia.
It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political
class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to
handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and
armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When
you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is
paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of
private profit why they take the decisions that they do.
– Craig Murray, former UK
diplomat
RT:
This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing
out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the
wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia
playing this out?
PCR: Trump no longer can normalize relations. The bill prohibits that. And he has no real
alternative to signing it because it's veto-proof. If Trump doesn't sign it, the media will use
that as proof that he is working in favor of Russia and that would probably lead to his
impeachment. So what Russia does, I don't know, it depends on how much they wake up, how much
they give up this illusion, this delusion actually, of reaching an accommodation. It is a
serious situation for Russia to have the United States committed to a path of conflict with
Russia. And that is precisely where the United States is. That is the precise effect of this
bill and that is the intention of one of the two main sponsors of the bill – to further
the conflict, to raise tensions, because this is essential to the power and budget of the
military-security complex.
The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct
characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of
Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose
theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his
unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever
rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting
to share together in that idyllic "
Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now,
waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan"
for sins and improprieties.
This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's
direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another
example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale
of a government lawyer in search of a crime.
Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory
from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all
the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.
Rather than setting specific parameters
for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with
President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal
regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice
and witness intimidation.
As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like
Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search
of a guilty man.
Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory
army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as
much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something
is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the
Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly)
recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal
laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed
to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.
What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds
Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal
and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets
his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing
the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel
choices.
The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets
for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome.
As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits
on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance"
and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of
homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date.
"That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent,"
writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite
arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."
At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if
that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West
Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the
real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.
Podgorica: US Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday accused Russian-backed agents of attempting to assassinate the prime
minister of Montenegro during an alleged coup attempt last year
Russia`s intentions were laid bare over the past year when Moscow-backed agents sought to disrupt Montenegro`s elections, attack
your parliament and even attempt to assassinate your prime minister", Pence said at the Adriatic Charter Summit.
He said the attack aimed "to dissuade the Montenegrin people from entering our NATO alliance"
On its way down the side of the toilet bowl, Washington will try to drag everyone else with it. I don't think it has any credibility
now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking. And the ridiculous pretense
that Montenegro will contribute in any meaningful way to the defensive strength of the NATO alliance is just comical – it has
become all about snatching territory away, allegedly out of Russia's grasp. I hope NATO does pour money into the Baltics like
there's no tomorrow – the Balts will gladly take it, but NATO will see no return on its money, and unless it comes up with a way
you can burn bullshit for fuel they will still depend on Russia for their energy.
"... Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action. ..."
"... Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous locations throughout the JOA. ..."
"... it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon. ..."
"... From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from humanity. ..."
"... If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting. ..."
There is no longer any doubt that the New York Times is nothing more than a willing cog in
the establishment war machine and is happy to serve as a propaganda platform. While there are
times that newspapers and electronic media outlets are unwitting dupes for propaganda, the
article penned by
MICHAEL
R. GORDON
and
ERIC
SCHMITT
(published on 31 July 2017) is the work of willing puppets masquerading as
journalists:
This screed starts with this piece of artful dishonesty:
Russia
is preparing to send as many as 100,000 troops to the eastern edge of
NATO
territory at the end of the summer, one of the biggest steps yet in the military
buildup undertaken by President
Vladimir V. Putin
and an exercise in intimidation that recalls the most ominous days of the
Cold War.
Since when is it an act of "aggression" for a country -- Russia in this case--to conduct
military exercises in its own territory? Gordon and Schmitt also conveniently omit the facts
that the United States has been engaged in a variety of military exercises on the border of
Russia for the last year. Yet, rather than acknowledge that truth, Gordon and Schmitt push the
lie that this is an unprovoked action by a militaristic Russia hell bent on conquering the
world.
How else is one to interpret the following quotes:
The military exercise . . . .is part of a larger effort by Mr. Putin to shore up Russia's
military prowess, and comes against the backdrop of an increasingly assertive Russia. Beyond
Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election in support of the Trump campaign, which
has seized attention in the United States, its military has in recent years deployed forces to
Syria, seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine, rattled the Baltic States with snap
exercises and
buzzed NATO planes and
ships
. . . .
"There is only one reason you would create a Guards Tank Army, and that is as an offensive
striking force," General Hodges said. "This is not something for homeland security. That does
not mean that they are automatically going to do it, but in terms of intimidation it is a means
of putting pressure on allies."
If you read only this article you would be excused for assuming that Russia is on the prowl
for no good reason. Fortunately, our media is not totally subservient to the war machine. NPR
reported last week that the United States is actually carrying out the
largest
military operations on Russia's border in 27 years
:
The U.S. and NATO are staging their largest military exercises since the end of the Cold
War, and they're doing it in countries of 3 former members of the Warsaw Pact: Romania,
Bulgaria and Hungary
DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Yes, I did. This is all part of what's been called the European
Deterrence Initiative, and it's a reinforcement of U.S. forces that had been depleted in
Eastern Europe before Russia annexed Crimea three years ago. And as part of this sort of
hardening of the U.S. presence here, there was an armored combat brigade team of about 4,000
Army troops from Fort Carson, Colo., that arrived here in Eastern Europe early this year. And
they're here in Romania, and they're taking part in military exercises along with about 20,000
other troops.
On Saturday, I was in the Carpathian Mountains, and I watched a pretty impressive live fire,
land and air assault there on an imagined enemy. And then yesterday, along the banks of the
Danube River here, there was another assault staged to retake the other side of the river from
another imagined enemy.
GREENE: You keep saying imagined enemy. Who is the imagined enemy?
WELNA: Well, no doubt it's Russia. And, you know, while this wasn't really a D-Day invasion
along the Danube - there was no fire return from the other side - there was a lot of sound and
fury. And here's a bit of what it sounded like.
Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual
exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise
involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of
the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army
Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a
unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and
stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action.
Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade
Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic
Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and
Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous
locations throughout the JOA.
The U.S.'s European Command, which is based in Germany, said Thursday it had
deployed an unspecified number of F-16 Fighting Falcons
from Aviano Air Base in Italy to
the Krzesiny Air Base in Poland in support of Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) and Saber Strike ,
two massive annual drills intended to boost the U.S.'s military presence in Europe and to
support regional allies. European Command's statement came a day after it said
a number of B-1B Lancers
had been sent from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to
join three B-52H Stratofortresses at the Royal Air Force base in Fairford, U.K. Meanwhile, 800
U.S. airmen in Europe were poised to train with NATO allies this month as the Western military
alliance escalates its rivalry with Russia.
U.S. troops arrived in the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, as part of the largest
armed military brigade deployed in Europe since the end of the Cold War
The U.S. troops, along with 53 track vehicles, including the M109 Paladin self-propelled
howitzer, reached Poland after a three-day journey through Germany. The
show of force
falls under Operation Atlantic Resolve, designed to show the United States'
commitment to its European allies in the face of what NATO sees as Russian aggression.
This is not a comprehensive list. If you take time to do further research you will discover
that the United States military in tandem with other countries has carried out several military
exercises from the Black Sea in the south, all along the western border of Russia and in the
Baltic Sea in the north.
If you are Russia and you are witnessing repeated deployments of U.S. infantry, armor, air
and naval units on the frontier that produced that last military invasion of Russia (which left
at least 20 million dead) would you sit back and do nothing?
What would the United States do if Russia managed to convince Mexico to sign a mutual
defense treaty and then proceeded to conduct tank and military air exercises along our southern
border? Would we do nothing?
Gordon and Schmitt are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Rather than
actually report facts and place them in their proper context, they chose instead to push lies
as truth and try to help shape public opinion into believing that Russia poses an imminent
threat to the west.
One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending
while the United States is slated for $650 billion. How much is the US spending on just EUCOM
exercises targeted at Russia? Sadly, there is bipartisan stupidity and ignorance when it comes
to the issue of properly assessing Russia and the threat it does (or does not) pose to the
United States. My cynical conclusion is that as long as Russia is portrayed as the great Red
menace bent on world domination we can justify spending $650 billion dollars to thwart an
invasion that is not coming.
The two presstitutes, and the NYT at large, do their job for the propagators of Wolfowitz the
Trotskyist' doctrine, according to which "Washington must conserve its advance over the rest
of the world by hindering the development of all potential competitors."
http://www.voltairenet.org/article197288.html
Meyssan writes, "We therefore find ourselves faced with the equation with which we started
– one one side, the outsider President of " the People's America ", and on the other,
all of the Washington ruling class supported by the deep state (meaning that part of the
administration charged with the continuity of the state over and above political
alternances). It is apparent that this coalition is supported by the United Kingdom and
Israël."
PT- incase you missed it, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller are the two NYT propaganda
sonography couple to go to, in case you need to start and sell a war choice that the American
public will have to pay with blood and savings.
All western media singing in tune. All US senate minus two singing in tune. All US house of
representatives minus three singing in tune.
With the latest Russia/Iran/NK sanctions, the US president has just been rendered
obsolete.
Whoever owns US 'democracy' now must be congratulating themselves.
it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world
is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon.
From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear
aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District
Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from
humanity.
If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself
often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate
almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting
convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting.
There is Quote some here will be familiar with - "Once is happenstance. Twice is
coincidence. Three times is enemy action" , whenever they each start to sing the same Tune I
take more particular note.
For this Reason, I while ago suggested they represent a Media Form of the 3 Horsemen
Beginning of NPR story:
After Russia annexed Crimea three years ago, the U.S. started reversing a military pullout
from Eastern Europe.
From the body of the story:
PRESIDENT KLAUS IOHANNIS: This is living proof of the fact that our soldiers not only talk
together. They are able, when it is necessary, to fight together.
WELNA: Could they deter Russia?
IOHANNIS: Of course they could. And I think they do it.
WELNA: But Romania's top military official, General Nicolae Ciuca, is less sanguine.
You are on the shore of the Black Sea. So is Russia. How worried are you about Russia?
NICOLAE CIUCA: I am as worried as the alliance is. We are not apart from the alliance.
WELNA: But is there reason to worry?
CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace
environment.
If our allies, who are quite familiar with an invasion from Russia, are worried, isn't the
least we can do is act like we are prepared to act?
It was so funny when then Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk announced to the world that the USSR invaded
Europe through Ukraine in 1944 and that Ukraine would prevent such an awful event in the
future.
So now it appears that the Banderastani mental disease has spread the Romanian general
staff...
"CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace environment."
One wonders whether poor trembling Nicolae was similarly and fearful when the US was
bombing Bosnia and Serbia back in the 1990s. The question answers itself.
What really has the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy's (AFPE&P)
knickers in a twist is that Russia and China now have the military capacity to deter them
conventionally.
The AFPE&P are consumed, indeed, fixated, on having 'leverage' and 'freedom of action'
and it drives them utterly out of their minds to be deprived of both.
Russiagate shows that American citizens don't matter. Not a shred of evidence has been
made public to document a Russian involvement. A war that could annihilate mankind could
break out any second with no justification. Even, Germany staged the Gleiwitz Incident with
Nazi S.S. troops wearing Polish uniforms to feed their propaganda machine to start WWII. With
the rise of Major General (ret.) John F. Kelly to Chief of Staff, the military now controls
the White House. To end the global media/intelligence community coup attempt; perhaps, a
diversionary war with Iran is in the cards. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is not clear
if the relative sanity of General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen has returned to DC.
Still, absolutely no one advocates for Peace and Prosperity.
Aaah, Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story used as
fake evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. And he and the NY Times have been spouting
fake news ever since.
" Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story "
The families of the wounded and fallen soldiers -- the victims of the war-profiteers
including Michael R Gordon -- should start a nice lawsuit against the scoundrel. There, for
sure, is a line in the Nuremberg protocols that addresses the agitators of a war of
aggression.
A valuable over-view of where we are now in what has become a dangerous and unnecessary
confrontation. Many thanks.
I'd like to ask about the Russian populations in the Baltic states.
Their position could be similar to that of the Russians in the Donbass in 2014. The
Russian or pro-Russian population of the Donbass was at risk from the post-coup Ukrainian
Government. That put the Russian Government in a cleft stick. It couldn't abandon the Donbass
Russians even had it wanted to because Russian public opinion wouldn't let it. Nor could it
simply order the Russian armed forces to move in to the Donbass and protect them. The
compromise solution of assisting the rebels to the extent of not allowing them to be over-run
was eventually adopted.
That task was simplified in that some of the Donbass Russians were trained soldiers and
had been able to form effective fighting units on their own. It's also said that they were
initially more or less self-sufficient in weapons and ammunition.
Although the Donbass resistance was initially piecemeal and uncoordinated it had the
advantage of being unexpected and the further advantage that the forces sent against it were
also poorly coordinated. The regular Ukrainian army was ill-prepared and the only Ukrainian
forces eager to fight were untrained street fighters. NATO participation was initially
restricted to advisers and covert assistance.
The position would be entirely different now in all respects. What happens if the Russians
living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their governments? It would be
difficult now for the Russian Government to assist them. Are the Baltic Russians in a
position to protect themselves as the Donbass Russians did? Do they have access to arms? Or
would we see what was avoided in the Donbass, forced expulsion of Russians living in the
near-abroad?
Situations for Russians in Donbass and Baltics differs of course...
Without going so deeply to this Matter, simply in Ukraine Russians and well all People
sympathetic to Russian Identity were not only significant in Demographic and Political Weight
but also have considerably involvement in Security Establishment....
When Events of Maidan through Crimea Events and into early Days of Donbas happened you saw
the defections of Berkut, Interior Ministry (Regionally) and in case of Khodakovskiy and his
Men - Regional SBU Unit...
This Groups made the Nucleus of Indigenous Resistance that expanded as Times went by
(Ukrainian Military also defected with some Armor), this also helped to gain access to Arms
and provided direct Inspiration regardless Moscow.
Russian Government support simply ensured that they would never lose...
Baltics by comparison has a Military which is far more Homogenous, Manned and Structured
and Culturally distinct from most Post Soviet Militaries, it also carries NATO Membership
making even just basic Perception of Support from Moscow a more risky consideration...
I think in general Russians in Baltics simply will do as always.... Sit and Deal with it
demoralised, Emigrate, in some cases Assimilate or simply be flattened by local Power
Structures should they express to much Anger.
For Russia, the Priority I think should be to how best bring them Home
The Baltic states had started a Russophobic complain under a slogan of the "native language"
immediately after their "liberation." Even those Russian families that have been living in
the Baltic states for generations must hold an exam in the "native" language in order to
maintain their citizenship there. The statistics for the citizens of Baltic States tells that
a large percent of the educated, intelligent, and ambitious have already left the new NATO
launching pads against Russia.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/baltics-emigration-and-demographic-decline
"What happens if the Russians living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their
governments?"
It is surpassingly unlikely that ethnic Russians in the Baltics are similarly at risk from
their governments. While they discriminate heavily against their ethnic Russians, they have
never shown any propensity to actively harm them, unlike the Banderastanis.
Trump's sidekick, Mike Pence, visited blisis where he stated: "US strongly condemns the
occupation" that "sees Russian tanks parked on Georgian soil". Then visited Podgorica as a
show of support after Montenegro's entrance into the NATO sparked bitter opposition from
Moscow.
"One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending
while the United States is slated for $650 billion. "
Actually, I'm against such blanked exercises in the monetary
phallometry
. The
amount of money spent doesn't mean anything without the context. It was here, on SSC, when I
read about a multi million $ waste on overpriced DoD office equipment and such. How much $
does the US spend on TP compared to Russia? Whatever the answer, I can safely predict that US
will be winner here as well. But... but... [you see what I'm doing here? ;)] does the
overpriced US military TP is somehow
better
than the one we used in Russian military?
Does it have some hitherto unknown properties, which might explain its higher cost? Some,
pardon me, "magickal power"?
Once again, unadjusted flat budget numbers mean
nothing
. They might make someone
feel good, that's for sure. But let me remind you of a something. Throughout the 2016 a
certain wing of the political spectrum in the US flaunted their budget. They had more time on
the TV. More so - the Intelligence community sympathetic to them had more money than the
"potential enemy"... Now they are claiming that FSB (or whatever the crazy scheme of the week
says) hacked them. Now they say that RT and Sputnik managed to (SOMEHOW!) dupe the populace
of the Republic using a tiny fraction of CNN's budget alone.
Makes you feel... useless, doesn't it?
P.S.
Relax! Remember that Saudi Arabia military still spends humongous amount of money, more
than the supposedly "traditional" powers of yore. It doesn't translate into the battlefield
prowess. Money =/= assured victory.
Guardian is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for neocons and neoliberals now. A
part of the US deep state war propaganda machine.
Shaun is well-known Guardian pressitute, so the article by itself does not make much sense. But
some comments are interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... So Putin helps reduce Russian collusion in US Embassy in Moscow. That is the bright side I believe. ..."
"... Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly scandalous a decision. ..."
A source in Moscow confirmed that the 455 figure was not only for US diplomats but for all staff
employed at the US missions, "from the cleaners to the ambassador", and said it would be up to the
Americans to decide how they reorganised their staffing.
Putin said on Sunday evening that the Russian order meant that 755 employees would have to "cease
their work".
The US embassy has refused to comment on how many staff it has and what the breakdown is between
local hires and diplomats, but a 2013 internal report into the Russia mission noted that the state
department deployed 301 diplomats and 934 locally hired staff positions in Russia. Allowing for small
changes over the past four years, this would fit roughly with Putin's statement that 755 should be
dismissed to leave a total of 455.
... ... ...
The almost unanimous passing by both houses of Congress last week of
new sanctions proved to be the final straw. Putin last week
said Russia could not continue to tolerate such "insolence" from the Americans.
"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response would
have looked weak," the pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov wrote on Facebook.
"After the new law in which Russia is basically called an enemy of the US, there's no possibility
for good relations. So why do we need such a big army of their diplomats here? So that they can spy
and interfere in our elections? It's better if they go home."
Please ....... provide evidence, because even the US hasn't provided any proof, all they do is
make a noise ....... out of the emptiest vessels comes the loudest noise.
Russia is more convenient as an enemy because it allows to justify spending a trillion on American
"defense" every year without actually going to war with Russia.
At the same time, Russia is a major competitor in the energy and weapons sales businesses,
and hurting Russia means benefiting the US businesses in this area.
'What will be the ramifications of Putin's order to reduce US embassy staff?'
We can safely assume that none of the diplomats the US chooses to bring home were engaged in
espionage, allowing the Russian security services to better concentrate their resources on the
remainder.
And what follows is not going to be pleasant for Russia and Putin....talk about blowback.
Not sure that, that will be the case. Putin outmanoeuvred Obama and the US re Crimea, and Syria,
added to which there was an article recently whereby both China and Russia agreed to protect each
other, they both know that if one falls the other one will be next. Trump and the US have been
waving their small willies around re the South China Sea, China has not said no ships can pass
through it, and the US has also been having a go at Russia, the EU however, are not willing to
support the new sanctions.
There is a crazy mentality in Washington, (together with a load of arm chair journalist) who
think that if they start a war, they will win, the truth will probably be far more serious than
that, for all parties, and the wider world ....... and then ask yourself why has neither China
or Russia both of whom have vetoing powers on the UN, not pushed North Korea re it's missile tests,
the geography, speaks for itself. It is about time, the willy waving, power crazed noises in the
US, shut up. Jaw, jaw, is far better than a major catastrophe
This report could be factually more informative. There is reciprocity in the Russian move: the
455 staff who may stay on at the US Missions in Russia is precisely the number employed by Russia
at its Missions in the US. In terms of real estate too there is reciprocity: 2 for 2.
For an informed assessment see:
http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/07/30/us-russia-ties-going-south /
I'm certain that China is able to supple Russia with whatever fertilisers + machinery it needs
though the Yanks have missed out in their sales of GMO seeds as Russia wouldn't except them as
a gift ( neither would Ukraine- if it has any sense left ( hmm-debatable)).
That's oversimplified bullocks, and I think you know it. US foreign policy in constant regardless
of who is in the WH and Russia has been very patient.
How easily the public is mis led by the lies of our so called intelligence agencies and the accusations
of a hysterical Hillary and the DNC .This has played perfectly into the hands of the NEO CONS.All
without one scintilla of proof of any Russian hacking.As a 35 yr ,hi ranking whistle blowing NSA
official William Binney said ,he suspects an FBI official released the E-Mails.Democrats and liberals
have jumped on board because it makes the idiot ,boy king look bad.They have forgotten all the
lies told to us since the end of WW2 by the pentagon,CIA,FBI,NSA State Dept and unnamed sources
like "Curve Ball"and WMDs.
and for the average south and central american, under waves of repression brought about by the
us, sometimes indirectly, sometimes directly, over more than a century.
Middle east:
American and western aggression also comes to mind.
a large amount of pity is indicated.
and regret. and sorrow.
repent, us -- there will be little forgiveness.
It is quite funny to watch. Obama and Clinton laughed at the suggestion of interference, now they've
lost it's all their media friends are pushing. It is quite transparent and quite hypocritical
considering the amount of elections and governments they've interfered with over the years.
The only way to make the cuts without sending dozens of diplomats home would be to make career
diplomats start pruning the hedges and answering the phones.
Love it ..... lets see how well, these self-important people manage) Putin and Russia have
been very restrained since Obama threw his teddy across the room, and spat out his dummy. No proof
has been provided to collaborate Russia's supposed interference in the US elections, (the same
as with other accusations) and until there is, the US should stop having childish tantrum ......
what's more, the US is saying that it is not the greatest nation on earth, that it's security/
IT systems aren't all singing, all dancing (well they have been hacked into by teenagers and others
with medical condition), and that unless something goes a particular way, they'll shout 'it's
not fair' like 5 year olds, when they can't get their own way ........ incidentally how many people
precisely actually voted on line in the US? or is the US, saying all the millions who voted for
Trump were brain-washed by Russia? If so, then Russia is most certainly the most powerful nation
on earth.
Thank you for your mail. Unfortunately most people in the UK (and almost all those in the US)
believe all this stupid propaganda about Putin interfering in elections and being an aggressive
warmonger when he is nothing of the sort. The US war machine needs constant conflict, and Putin,
by standing up to the US, provides a significant enough enemy to get budgets approved. I wish
you all the best in Russia.
Russia's surprise move is so severe that if it goes ahead it is likely to paralyse the work
of US diplomats in Russia – depending on how the details shake out
'Diplomats' or 'spies' to give them their proper name.
Well, if 455 Russian diplomats can serve the US, a country of 320mil+ people, then the same number
should be able to serve the country of 140mil+ people.
Yet, it already takes 2 months for a Russian tourist to get a US visa, while it takes just
a couple of days for an American tourist to get a Russian visa.
I am assuming with the cuts it is going to be a year to get an American visa.
Honestly, I always got an impression that Americans didn't want to give visas to Russians at
all. Otherwise, why make the process so difficult?
Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual
norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly
scandalous a decision.
"I expect that Putin and Trump will take it from here to move towards more constructive relations."
You appear to have convinced yourself the Russia wants to be America's friend. No, they dont.
They want to best America, to achieve for yhemselves everything that Americans already have.
The Russians are still eager, still hungry. America, by comparisson, is fat and complacent.
What do you mean to say, "banning the import of European produce is hitting Russians"? Do you
mean that we are starving here in Russia? I live in the agricultural South of Russia. Farmers
and various sanctioned food producers in Russia pray to almighty God, the sanctions to last forever.
It gives them great competitive advantage in a pretty large country.
Low Rouble rate also helps
a lot to export all kinds of agricultural products. As for European export producers - well we
don't care. And it's strange to think that absence of French cheese or Polish apples will make
us cry.
The US makes itself enemies around the world. When Russia, China and the middle east states got
enough and fed up with the US, it can stop using the US dollars as reserve currency and at the
moment is an economic collapse of the US inevitable. It is probably going to happen in the future
and in this case
The US with its worthless currency is doomed as Britain even far more.
"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response
would have looked weak ..."
Markov's statement in the final paragraph sums up this sad situation well.
Putin is clear-minded enough to see that this latest episode of orchestrated Russophobia for
US internal political purposes is not Trump's fault. He had little choice in the matter.
"... The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered , demonstrated that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More recent editions of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political leadership. ..."
"... Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016 elections!and, in fact, there are serious doubts about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will reverse its annexation of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. ..."
would
sign
the bill!perhaps reflecting just how much proponents of a new cold war with Russia
have intimidated the Trump team. The extent and virulence of anti-Russia sentiment has reached
alarming levels.
Members
of Congress and other
opinion
leaders in
both
parties have branded the alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 election as an act of war, and one
congressman even explicitly compared it to
Pearl Harbor and 9-11
.
Given such hysteria and the lopsided congressional vote in favor of the sanctions
legislation, Trump's reluctance to use his veto power was not necessarily a manifestation of
political cowardice. Only
three House members
and
two
senators
(Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders) cast negative votes. Even Senator Mike Lee
(R-Utah), who usually is sensible on foreign policy issues, joined the legislative lynch
mob.
The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive
record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer,
Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott,
Economic Sanctions Reconsidered
, demonstrated
that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More
recent editions
of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the
targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they
seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true
when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political
leadership.
The track record in recent decades does very little to contradict that thesis. The United
States and its allies have imposed ever-tightening sanctions on North Korea to force that
country to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang's repeated
nuclear tests and its recent launches of an
intercontinental
ballistic missile
demonstrate the utter futility of the sanctions strategy.
Washington has been equally unsuccessful in using that tactic toward another adversary,
Cuba. A succession of U.S. administrations, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower's, maintained that
approach for more than a half century before Barack Obama
began
to normalize relations
with Havana in late 2014. Unfortunately, President Trump
rescinded
several
of the beneficial and realistic changes that his predecessor had made. Yet the
results of the Cuba embargo were
no more impressive
than the outcome of sanctions against North Korea. Washington's demands
that the Castro regime stop its human-rights abuses, move toward democracy, and compensate
Americans for property seized following the 1959 revolution all failed to produce any
discernible results. The Castro dynasty remains in power, the Cuban regime is still a communist
dictatorship, there has been no compensation for seized property, and the improvement in the
treatment of political dissidents is minimal, at best.
Even the alleged success stories that sanctions proponents tout turn out to be unimpressive.
The Iran agreement is a prominent example. Sanctions may have played a modest role in getting
Tehran to the conference table, but the agreement occurred only when the United States and the
other P5+1 powers backed off of their demand that Iran capitulate and refrain from developing
any capacity to enrich uranium. The resulting agreement was very much a compromise measure, and
hawks in the United States vehemently
condemned it
as a
U.S.-led
surrender
to Iran.
Imposing harsh measures on Russia is especially worrisome. Moscow was quick to retaliate for
congressional passage of the latest punitive package. Vladimir Putin's government
immediately ordered
a reduction in the size of America's embassy staff in Moscow and seized
several U.S. diplomatic properties. Moreover, the argument that Russia's actions were in
response to the Obama administration's similar steps in December 2016 misconstrues the
situation. Putin made a point of assuring President-elect Trump that he
would not retaliate
for the December penalties. But imposition of the new sanctions
triggered a decisive policy change.
Economic sanctions appear to be the
habitual favorite tool
in Washington's foreign policy tool kit. It provides the illusion of
a moderate, middle course between a total reliance on diplomacy and resorting to military
force. Given that tactic's pervasive lack of effectiveness, though, policymakers need to
overcome their obsession. That is especially so when the underlying demands are completely
unrealistic.
Sanctions will not compel North Korea to give up its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Pyongyang's leadership elite believes that it needs such capabilities
to deter
Washington from contemplating forcible regime change. Given U.S. actions against
such
nonnuclear
adversaries
as Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, that is not an irrational conclusion.
Likewise, new sanctions against Tehran for violating "
the spirit
" of the P5+1 accord is thoroughly counterproductive. Even the Trump
administration had to
concede
, however
reluctantly, that Iran has abided by the actual terms of the agreement. Imposing sanctions is
not likely to cause President Rouhani's relatively moderate government to become more
cooperative. Indeed, that step may strengthen the power of Iranian hardliners who wish to
repudiate the agreement and move to build a nuclear deterrent.
Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already
worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016
elections!and, in fact, there are
serious
doubts
about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in
eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will
reverse its
annexation
of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up
the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the
puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Economic sanctions have the dubious quality of being simultaneously provocative and
ineffectual. The latest manifestation likely will cause serious trouble for the United States
on multiple fronts. Policymakers need to overcome their addiction to sanctions before it
produces an immense tragedy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of
more than 650 articles on international affairs.
The US Congress feel that they own the Earth like a big plantation, and all other countries including
Russia, China, Japan and "Europiean allies" are their vassals. That's typical for the elite which lost
connection with the reality as the global neoliberal empire built by the USA and allies since 1980 beginning
to crumbles. Same situation happened with th UK elite too. At the same time the US is still dominant
in many spheres and Russia should be very careful with countermeasures. The US Congress is spoiling
for a fight, or, at least, is dreaming about the return of good old days on Cold War (with now now as
a designated "Evil empire"), when existence of the USSR prevented the US elite from going off rails
and helped to keep vassals (aka allies) in check.
But he did insist Russia remained keen on "continuing cooperation in the areas that correspond
to our interests", suggesting Moscow remains open to working together on Syria after agreeing a ceasefire
with the US in the south of the war-torn country.
... ... ...
In response to allegations of Kremlin election hacking then US president Barack Obama in December ordered
out 35 Russian diplomats and closed down two embassy summer houses that Washington said were being used
by Moscow for espionage.
At the time, the Kremlin said it would put any retaliation on hold as it waited for Trump to take
office.
House Speaker Paul Ryan just bragged the House passed "one of the most expansive sanction
packages in history." The bill places sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Factor in
Trump's ill-advised threats to raise tariffs on Chinese steel, and we have at hand a
protectionist trade war tinder box in search of a match.
Protectionist trade war tinderbox in search of a match: EU, Russia, Brexit, Chinese Steel,
Nord Stream, Trump
https://t.co/DMQzgf3nji
The bi-partisan votes are only rare because they have to maintain the illusion of there
being two opposing parties. When it comes to legislation to grow government intrusion,
violate the Constitution, wars, etc, these "rare" votes always show up.
Russian Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti on
Wednesday.
He asserted the restrictions cannot inflict substantial damage on Russia. "Our
macroeconomic policy is shaped in such a way so that sanctions-related shockwaves coming from
outside do not have significant impact on the Russian economy," he said.
My opinion is this does Fuck the EU! I hope the temps in the EU are unbelievably fucking
cold this winter!!!
The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs
for decades.
This includes US meddling in Russian elections using NGO's. Not only does the US meddle
and interfere in other countries elections it overthrows democratically elected governments
it doesn't like, and then installs puppet leaders. Our neocons casually refer to this as
"regime change".
I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if Russia fomented, paid for, and
assisted in a violent overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected government in
Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City helping
and training radicals how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment violent
pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico City handing out tacos, and tamales
emboldening and urging these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and toss the
bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta
puppet leaders of Mexico and a Russian senator, Ivan MiKainlev in Mexico City stating on RT,
there are no drug cartels here!
On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers spent billions doing exactly
this. Instead of drug cartels it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including
John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess, civil war and horrific death in
Ukraine on Russia's border and then placed all the blame for it on Putin and Russia.
WTF!!!
Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the regime change policy implemented
by Obama, Clinton and Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is totally
fucked. It is now a banana republic embroiled in a civil war. For the US and NATO the golden
prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme
did not play out as intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons place on
Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!
Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned taxpayer dollars to create pain,
suffering, death and a civil war inside Ukraine on Russia's border!
This is a case of don't do what we do [meddle and interfere], only do what we tell you to
do! The moral of the story here is its perfectly okay when we do it. We don't like it when we
think it's been done to us!
It's hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!
Tech Camp NGO operating out of US Embassy in Kiev (using social media to help bring out
radicals-
PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy
industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this
bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups.
And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which
is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy
companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that
they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the
United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes
are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US
representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3]
voted
against it. You can see
the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations
between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the
United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.
Dollar dominance is just one feature of neoliberalism. You just can't take is separately
and attack it. You will be instantly crushed.
And BTW Russia is still a neoliberal country with its own set of oligarchs (some of which
now will face significant losses) and after Yeltsin drunken rampage always was. Which
represents the fifth column within the country. So fact they did not rebel, but this may
eventually change as losses are mounted. This is the USA calculation.
It was a miracle that Russia avoided further dismembering and complete neoliberal
colonization. But that's about it. Now this is not the time to test its luck again, I think.
It's too early.
BTW China is also a neoliberal country as well, although deviant in its own way. Anybody
who think that in case of troubles China will come to Russia help, because she will be next
target of Washington, might well be a dreamer. On the contrary, Chine might try to corner
Russia in prices of hydrocarbons because of sanctions. The rule of neoliberalism if that if a
country is sinking, help her to sink faster.
This "deviation" from Washington consensus" in the form of more independent foreign policy
and defense of national interests than are allowed by Washington -- the center of global
neoliberal empire is what Russia is punished for. All those fake accusation of hacking are
just a convenient pretext. That's why sanctions legislation enjoyed such a majority in
Congress -- the country that challenges the US dominance in global neoliberal empire should be
destroyed.
That means that Russia should be very careful not to overreact as trump cards in this
geopolitical game are still in the USA hands. Especially in high technology.
Washington is spoiling for a fight. They failed with the attempt of color revolution in
Russia in 2012. After that setback they organized coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. Just
watch how they will try to derail Putin during the next elections. All means are good or
them.
It is time to speak the obvious: Cold War 2.0 is officially on. Though this Cold War is
different and possibly far more dangerous. The world is in uncharted waters as the Trump
White House attempts to find its footing.
CrossTalking with Edward Lozansky, Mark Sleboda, and Vladimir Golstein.
US Senate has voted on the bill containing a package of sanctions against Russia, Iran and North
Korea. The senators have taken on great responsibility because Moscow is not going to watch the hostile
action idly, it will respond. The retaliatory measures will be felt.
As Russia's Foreign Ministry announced on July 28, the decision has been taken to seize the Serebryany
Bor diplomatic compound in north-west Moscow as well as the embassy's warehouse in a tit-for-tat
move. A total of 35 diplomats will be sent home. The embassy staff must be reduced to 455 – the level
of Russia embassy staff in Washington.
If President Trump signs the bill into law, it'll be hard to imagine Moscow cooperating with the
US in the UN Security Council on the draft resolution sanctions to punish North Korea. Washington
may need the Russia's support badly pretty soon.
The US space research programs will suffer a severe blow deprived of Russia RD-180 and RD-181
rocket engines they so much depend on. NASA's Atlas 5 rocket launches will be suspended.
The export portfolio of JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX) includes 25 contracts with a total value
of about $6.5 billion concluded with 19 US companies with the supply perspectives until 2028.
The volume of the agreed supplies of Russian uranium products (that is 20% of annual reactor needs
at the US nuclear power plants) is 95% used. There are few actors on the world market who could
substitute the Russian supplies and it takes time and effort to make new deals, if it possible
at all.
VSMPO-AVISMA is the world's largest manufacturer of titanium products and the Russian supplier
of titanium to Boeing and other US aerospace companies. It accounts for about a half of all titanium
imported by the United States and over a third (35%) of titanium consumed by Boeing. The American
company has investments in Russia. It has been in the country for decades. About five years ago,
it announced plans to
invest $27 billion over the
next 30 years. In 2014, VSMPO and Boeing had signed an extension of the supply contract for
titanium sheet to 2022.
VSMPO-AVISMA has no competitors in the world and can easily find other customers. The US partners
will face a very serious problem unable to find an alternative. The suspension of titanium supplies
from Russia would damage the US defense industry capabilities.
American companies operating in Russia could be targeted. They risk suffering
heavy losses , especially energy giants and banking conglomerates. For instance, Caterpillar
could lose orders for heavy equipment needed to build pipelines and other construction projects.
US high-tech companies may be prevented from working with Russian counterparts – something they are
interested in.
The issue fits into a larger geopolitical pattern. The
EU reaction makes it a pro-Russian bill, pushing Europe away from the United States to Russia.
Europeans get more evidence to see that Washington's high-fallutin' harangues about Atlantic solidarity
are the way to promote its selfish interests. The differences between the United States and the EU
undermine the G7's unity regarding Russia. The countries agreed on the link between the Minsk accords
and the sanctions. Now the US is going unilateral, provoking Europeans into continuing with the North
Stream 2 project to defy America and, thus, benefit Russia. According to Europeans, "America First"
should not be a synonym for "Europe second" or "Europe irrelevant".
According to Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, this bill "will
not achieve its objectives and will instead cause new problems. Unless it undergoes significant revision,
it would compromise European energy security and damage US relations with Europe. The beneficiary
of such an outcome would be Russia". According to Ischinger, the North Stream-2 issue "is not a question
that should be decided in Washington. It is a European issue, to be decided by Europeans based on
European law and regulation". The expert believes that signed into law, the legislation would "tip
the scales in favor of those who want to end Europe's participation in the existing trans-Atlantic
policy approach on Russia, including the sanctions regime. If the president signs the bill in its
current form, it would alienate America's important complicating our alliance at a critical moment".
So, in an effort to strike Russia the US Congress has targeted Europe and NATO solidarity.
The fraying US-Russia ties will entail fraying arms control relationship. The "Russia sanctions
bill" is not the only legislation expected to become law if Presidents Trump signs it. The proposed
defense budget for 2018 has taken aim at the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, as well
as the Open Skies and even New START treaties. Becoming law, it would deal a major blow to the US-Russia
arms-control architecture. Russia would have no choice but respond. This would lead to arms race.
If the US provokes the termination of the INF Treaty, it will greatly spoil its relations with the
European allies. Is it wise to develop an intermediate range missile nobody wants on its soil?
President Trump has also ordered a major review of US nuclear policy, a common move by new administrations.
The mission is impossible without making clear if the US has arms control arguments with Russia in
force or not. No clarity on the issue would greatly complicate military planning in general.
Russia can and will deal a heavy blow in response to the US "sanctions bill". Unlike Iran or North
Korea, it can do it. This ability should not be underestimated by the president who intends to sign
the bill into law. Too many times have US experts and lawmakers made calculations about how much
the measures will hurt Russia without assessing the damage America will inflict on itself.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
"... Diane Johnstone peels back the way the sanctions applied by the USA are likely to be the suicide note for the USD as reserve currency: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/collateral-damage-u-s-sanctions-aimed-at-russia-strike-western-european-allies/ ..."
"... at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status, and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about choices and how it means freedom if you have them? ..."
"... I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union backed by gold. ..."
"... A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat currency like the greenback. ..."
Thanks so much for that! I seem to have revealed my ignorance by asking rhetorically, earlier;
"Why don't countries ordered to pay huge fines to the USA simply tell Uncle Sam to ram it up his
chuff, sideways?" After all, the USA has no authority to find the financial institutions of other
sovereign nations guilty of corruption, and order them to pay huge fines to the United States
– it's highway robbery. But now we get down to the nub of it – because of the dollar's status
as international reserve currency.
I have been saying for years that it is time for the world to dump the dollar as reserve currency,
and maybe this time it will really happen. Oh, just as
the
reserve currency – the dollar
will likely always be reserve currency, owing to the global importance of the American economy.
But
at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging
his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status,
and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although
there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason
countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about
choices and how it means freedom if you have them?
I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to
say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union
backed by gold.
Because although the United States is supposed to have the world's biggest
gold reserves, I think many share my belief that that is all just on paper, and they really don't
have more than a quarter what they say they have, perhaps less. They certainly go out of their
way to squash any country which proposes trading in gold, as they did Libya and Iraq. Well, Iraq's
crime was more a state-led drive to dump the greenback than it was a shift to gold, but it seemed
to have the same effect.
A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult
position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat
currency like the greenback.
"... I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded - quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement. ..."
"... So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is signatory to, I agreed. ..."
The
Russia-sanctions train appears to be accelerating out of the congressional station, which makes
it highly unlikely that both chambers of the Legislative Branch will want to revisit its provisions,
especially when escape from Washington's heat beckons with the forthcoming summer recess. Nevertheless,
it behooves members of Congress, if they are
determined to continue with this course of action (and the absolute majorities voting in favor
of different versions of the sanctions in both the House of Representatives and Senate, far above
the number needed to override any possible presidential veto), to take a pause and consider some
changes.
Agree. This is the same open-ended congressional stupidity as the AUMF, (unbounded perpetual
war).
Russia will NEVER cede back Crimea. In that context, Congress has just baked in perpetuity
Cold War II with Russia. And Trump with his feckless stupidity is all in. At a time when the obsolescent
and unaffordable America as Global Cop model is unwinding.
I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded
- quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement.
So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation
of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is
signatory to, I agreed.
Is this more of the same? That seems a statistical probability.
The Real Reason for Sanctions? Stubborn Russia Won't Surrender Its Sovereignty
Regime change may not be the main aim of US sanctions against Russia!but it certainly fits the
pattern
Paul Goncharoff
10
In the 20th century, the use of sanctions as punitive policy became more and more popular. Franklin
Roosevelt tried sanctions on Japan in 1940. Dwight Eisenhower imposed them on Britain (Suez) in 1956.
Jimmy Carter smacked them on the Soviet Union after its invasion (by invitation) of Afghanistan in
1980 with a wheat embargo and an Olympic boycott. Reagan used them to protest martial law in Poland.
Congress also began to see the ease of using sanctions as a cheap way of expressing a hissy fit.
In 1996, for example, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Vanuatu and Venezuela
all were sanctioned to one or another degree by the US for their historic relations with whales and/or
dolphins. All told, it is estimated that sanctions were used in less than 25 instances during the
20
th
century. Since then America has imposed more than 80 new sanctions on foreign independent,
sovereign countries.
Sanctions make for headlines that show political "action", they have a feel-good aura and allow
politicians to feel they are being seen and headlined as doing something. Sanctions are less wimpy
than word spanking an ambassador and less gory than sending in the marines. They afford immediate
satisfaction of work in progress, despite the annoying details of collateral damage. The alleged
Russian violations of international norms resulted in a sanctions regime progressively imposed upon
Russia. However, various legal and political scholars regard sanction regimes as basic material coercion
and therefore irreconcilable with international law.
Regime change may not be the main aim of sanctions, or the norm, although it seems to fit the
pattern. The morality of punishing the citizens of a foreign sovereign nation is worth a thought.
It seems a kinky way to win hearts and minds. No wonder that sanctions, especially unilaterally imposed
ones like America's long standing on again – off again ban on trade with Cuba, Libya, Iran, or amped
up sanctions against Russia might also understandably cause friction among one's own allies.
Under current sanctions the export value from Russia to the United States for the first 5 months
of 2017 amounted to $3.9 billion, while import value for the same period was $4.8 billion, a negative
trade balance for Russia. The total volume of trade between Russia and the United States has been
declining since 2014. In 2016, the total volume amounted to $19.9 billion, which is a drop from $29.1
billion in 2014. The 28-country EU during this same period recorded its greatest increase of trade
with Russia, which overtook Switzerland as the third main source of imports for the EU. Despite western
economic sanctions imposed after Crimea voted to integrate with the Russian Federation, EU exports
to Russia grew 24.6 percent between January and May, driven by manufactured goods and machinery,
while imports, composed principally of oil and gas, surged by 37.6 percent. This illustrates that
change too is reality; perceptions and assessments move on and develop. Perceptions within the EU
have certainly moved on from the emotional propaganda of 2014, to a more realistic view of what is
happening in Ukraine today. It would be common sense if some thought were given right from the start
to defining a clear mechanism for ending sanctions; they are easier to impose than to lift, and the
sanctioned regime is unlikely to make even small concessions if these are not greeted with some quid
pro quo. In any event, after years of ritual sanctioning for example the decade's long 'Jackson-Vannick'
cork. Eventually fatigue sets in and the sanctioned state of affairs becomes the new normal. It can
even be ended, then re-branded, say to 'Magnitsky' yet the band plays on.
The fashion today is "smart" sanctions, which try to isolate and hurt the elites of a country
and not the collateralized populations. This is most often viewed by their citizenry as an insult
to their nation and tends to raise a consolidating grass roots patriotic response irrespective of
their brand of democratic flavor.
It is troubling that those who support and impose sanctions offer only the vaguest explanations
of how they expect the imposition of economic pain to result in political gain. If one recalls the
1990's and Iraq when Western ambassadors declared that
sanctions should aim to harm the Iraqi
population
thereby forcing Saddam Hussein to heel. At that time the then US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright said that 500,000 children's deaths were 'worth it'. Excepting for the fact
that this humanitarian disaster due to sanctions and its collateral damage did not unseat the Iraqi
regime as envisioned. The ensuing 'smart' war did.
By dreaming up and using "smart" or "targeted" sanctions as ways to affect those perceived as
directly responsible for disagreeing with the current status-quo, or today's flavor of what is 'normal'
usually involve financial restrictions, travel bans and other inconveniences targeted at a few dozen
to a few hundred individuals, companies or government entities. While it may sound like it could
work, it is equally naïve. It assumes that target governments are driven entirely by the preferences
of a small cabal of individuals, and that messing with their lifestyle perquisites will result in
policy change. This is patently absurd, and in spite of MSM reports that may differ, even governments
of an authoritarian lean are based on coalitions of social and political forces – which are often
extremely broad, and shape what those governments can and cannot do.
High time a realistic assessment is made as to the quite limited capacities, not to mention legalities
of engineering social and political outcomes in other sovereign governments. We need to fully appreciate
the coalitions underpinning existing sovereign governments and those who are promoting alternatives
to elected governments before embarking merrily on regime-change plots. It makes sense to consider
how sanctions will affect these different groups and the conflicts/struggles between them. We need
to be able definitively make the case of how imposing economic pain is likely to lead to changes
we expect are being looked for, and whether in fact such changes are in anyone's national, economic,
cultural or humanitarian interests.
These very basic assessments unsurprisingly are not being made by any state or international organization
currently deploying sanctions. Sanctions therefore are being imposed based on fuzzy wishful thinking
and not on defined outcomes. Given the real and often severe damage inflicted on target societies,
that is highly irresponsible, frequently counter-productive, not legally justifiable and, for a policy
often justified by appealing to some brand of morality, is simply unethical.
"... The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated. Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived insults from the United States... ..."
"... Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. ..."
"... Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal, according to international law. ..."
"... The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket does not mean it's gonna be forever. ..."
"... Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life. ..."
"... ...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine will never comply. ..."
"... The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways ..."
"... Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to 455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence Russian election. ..."
"... The real reason for all this is to increase American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe. ..."
"... Once the US loses its dollar as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket, severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time... ..."
"... It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses. ..."
"... Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed the sanctions? ..."
"... It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats, election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war). ..."
"... Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo - her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media ..."
"... reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT). ..."
"... America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan, etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli land grabs in the Golan and so on. ..."
"... Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. .. ..."
The surprise about the Russian Foreign Ministry's announcement of Russian sanctions on U.S. diplomats
and embassy properties is that they did not come sooner. The usual practice during the Cold War and
after was that any diplomatic expulsion on either side was met with a symmetrical response. Indeed,
in December, after the Obama administration expelled thirty-five Russian diplomats and closed down
two embassy compounds to punish
Russia
for its interference in the 2016 election, Foreign Minister Lavrov appeared the next day
on television brandishing a list of thirty-five American diplomats whom he advised President Putin
to expel. But Putin surprised the world by announcing, "While we reserve the right to take reciprocal
measures, we're not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy."
Clearly the Kremlin believed that once President Trump took office the sanctions would be rescinded
and relations would improve, so why not be magnanimous?
...The
downturn in relations
is largely for domestic reasons on both sides. The incessant stream of
investigations into ties between the U.S. president's family and close advisors and different Russian
individuals!plus the 2016 election!has made Russia
a toxic subject
in Washington, DC. In an unusual alliance between congressional Republicans and
Democrats, the Senate passed by 98–2 a bill codifying and expanding existing sanctions, which were
initially imposed under Obama after the annexation of Crimea by executive order, because they want
to remove from Trump the ability to lift these sanctions unilaterally. Congress would now have to
approve any modification of the sanctions regime. This kind of legislation is a blunt instrument.
Once passed, as the history of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment shows (it remained in place for thirty-eight
years), it will probably stay on the books for longer than necessary and remove the
flexibility and leverage
that a president could have in dealing with Russia.
Domestic factors have also influenced Russia's response. Russian nationalism has become a potent
force. Putin faces re-election in March and, while his popularity remains high, his appeal rests
largely on his foreign-policy accomplishments, showing that Russia is a respected world power and
that he is a strong leader.
The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the
Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated.
Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived
insults from the United States...
...The U.S. sanctions bill, designed to hurt Russia, may have unintended consequences for the
United States. As currently written, it will not only continue to penalize Russia but will also penalize
American and European businesses because of its restrictions on energy projects that involve Russian
companies. Specifically, the bill seeks to prevent the construction of the Nord Stream Two gas pipeline
that would export Russian gas under the Baltic Sea to Europe. Germany supports the pipeline as the
most cost-effective way to meet future gas demand, as do most,but certainly not all, of its EU partners.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has warned that the sanction bill "could
have unintended unilateral effects that impact the EU's energy security interests." He added that
"if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within
a matter of days."
Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda
behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe.
Some EU officials have
warned that the EU may rethink its own sanctions regime, carefully designed with the Obama administration,
if the United States moves forward with the bill. This, of course, would be good news for the Kremlin.
"The irony, of course, is that Russia has brought this upon itself through its actions in Ukraine
and during the U.S. election campaign."
The irony is that the author does not see (or pretends not to see) that the US does the same thing
(and even worse).
Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much
influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal,
according to international law.
I'm not even gonna count how many countries were bombed "in
the name of democracy", which is also illegal.
The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket
does not mean it's gonna be forever.
Exactly correct. How many times did the US interfere by installing friendly Juntas, in south
and middle America? Several dozen times? The various "Color Revolutions" financed with US money
to add former soviet states the EU/US/NATO orbit, so the EU could sell goods and services to them
instead of Russia, and so NATO could supply them with arms instead of Russia?
Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding
to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life.
Russia peacefully annexed Crimea AFTER the vast majority of the Crimean population voted for
it, including many Ukrainians and some Tartars living in Crimea; population 65% ethnic Russian,
25% Ukrainian, 10% Tartar.
Every time we (USA) do something based on lies and propaganda is a good news for Russia. Which
is exactly how every time Soviet Union did something based on lies and propaganda was a good news
for USA.
Also, how funny ... most of establishment politicians in USA keep pointing out a Russian "annexation"
of Crimea. Yet, none of them have any problem with Bill Clinton using military force, bombing
Yugoslavia for 70 days and recognizing independence of Kosovo. Let me just remind you which laws
and chapters BiIl Clinton violated: USA Constitution, NATO chapter, Helsinki agreement, War Powers
resolution ...
....and UN Res. 1244 but that was just a convenience to wipe the egg off of Clinton's face
on day 78, AFTER he himself insisted on pushing it through.
...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous
Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it
to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine
will never comply.
The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways
,
Well, once Russia starts writing larger checks than Riyadh is writing today the US politicians
will suddenly "discover a discrepancy" - until then we'll have a (unjust) status quo. "FOLLOW
THE MONEY"!
Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to
455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover
this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence
Russian election.
murrican hypocrisy knows no bounds. Whatever they accuse others of they do worse, but there
is no proof their accusations have any factual basis, only hoping that 100 times repeated lie
becomes fact. USA the nazi-like empire, where facts don't matter as much as wishful thinking.
Good post, and most of what you said is true.
The real reason for all this is to increase
American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made
in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy
to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically
this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe.
Knock yourself out, Boris. You may see yourself in competition with the US, but there really
is no competition. You will return to the failed Soviet policies, and we will continue to advance.
And our debt is already so large that we cannot even pay the interest on it if interest rates
were to rise to what they were in the Jimmy Carter Administration. We are a failed nation unless
we can keep interest rates low.
30 year Treasuries yield indicates that the market is not freakinf out. And under the current
interest rates servicing the debt is cheaper than under Reagan
You will care, among every one else who lives in the USofA.
Once the US loses its dollar
as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase
foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket,
severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time...
It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because
this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses.
That debt out there keeps the world under control. It is the greenback in your pocket, but
it's not worth anything. Every currency traded on the open market works the same way. What matter
is debt to GDP, and ours is fairly low still. Japan has ten times the debt to GDP ratio. The yen
is still worth money.
Certainly, we have been printing money for a long time. Other nations could not get away with
such practices as hyper inflation would surely follow. The fact that the US controls the IMF,
World Bank and, pretty much the world's money supply, allows us to set the interest rates to artificially
ridiculously low levels in order to service our outstanding debt levels with minimum costs. If/when
the US dollar loses its special status to a basket of international currencies we'll lose our
ability to set conditions for the world financial markets.
That is why the emerging Chinese-led BRICS banking system appears to be a deadly threat to
the US economy and, in turn, to its world hegemony.
Just this week CIA head, Mike Pompeo, declared China as the #1 threat to the US. When asked,
he further indicated that it was the Chinese economic progress that threatened the US. Christine
Legarde, head of IMF, backed this up by predicting that the IMF could move to Bejing within 5
years. The writings are on the wall....
Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security
and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed
the sanctions?
Also Russia is the best supplier of natural gas to the EU. In fact it's so good that the Congress
tries to use dirty tricks that might delay Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
You are right the US is in no position to compete with Russia, hence the hysteria in American
establishment.
Intelligent talking points met with sophomoric cookie cutter drivel. That's the extent of your
understanding of the universe I'm afraid.
It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting
supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that
matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats,
election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless
sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war).
You reap what you sow, kiddo. No excuses. Problem is, they drag most Americans into it with
no true understanding of their motives or the consequences. It's THEY who should be sanctioned.
Quarantined, even better.
The irony, dear author, is...that the US, just as it did in Syria by arming salafist jihadis
to pressure Assad to step down and turned Syria into a nightmare, it fomented, backed, trained
and financed the European banderite-fascist equivalent of Middle Eastern salafist jihadis to overthrow
a duly-elected, OSCE sanctioned president and instead of insisting new elections occur in six
months time as the EU had so laboriously negotiated, subverted democracy in the name of hegemonic
dreams, shot itself in the foot, slipped in its own poo, hoisted itself by its own petard, singlehandedly
resurrected the cold war and worse and still can't come to grips with its own culpability in it
all.
Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo -
her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is
just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media
Ask Sessions. I suppose he should just emulate the democrats and their neocon cohorts by building
cases on innuendo and speculation provided by a coterie of 'anonymous sources' and no proof of
consequence and have their faithful media editors redact any news to the contrary.
A free press does not mean the freedom to press your agenda by any and all means available,
in case you weren't aware.
I regret that I have to give you rudimentary lessons in civics but apparently, someone has
to.
Messing in your politics ? You were supposed to vote in Hitlery and you got Trump. These politicians
mean that meddling is having RT and Sputnik in English so you can form an opinion different than
ordained by the deep state oligarchy. They want to punish you for not having Hitlery as president.
It is very disturbing when a warmoínger, mass murderer, friend of now slain Al-Baghdadi who is
photographed with McCain is somehow a positive person. USA is trying to meddle in politics of
each country because they think might makes right. If EU peoples throw your NATO out and become
independent, no more US vassals, seeking their own interests not US first EU last, because USA
is the land of evil and of corruption to the bone. Your evil drives sane people from you. The
wicked love you, the sane are disgusted. Nobody likes imperialist yanks. Nobody likes their terrorist
friends. No Obama or Trump or swamp.
The million barrels question is how prevent american messing in the rest of the world's politics
and elections... Which punishment to DC regime would be enough to bring freedom to the world?
The US Embargo Act of 1807 did great damage to Northeast shipping interests, and commerce more
generally. However, it became a huge boost to Northeast manufacturing interests. The US economy
diversified, and new businesses were established to do what had been imported. Prices were higher
at first, and quality was down at first, but the Embargo Act effectively protected the start up
of the US post-colonial economy.
Western experts have long maintained that Russia needs to diversify its economy, away from
exports of oil, gas, and raw materials, into the sort of manufacturing that would displace imports.
That is harder for Putin to control and loot, and generally a lot harder to do than Putin's political
machine has been able to do.
Now we are in effect giving them that. We've imposed on them their Embargo Act advantage, and
are forcing them to do what we know they should do to be stronger against us.
This may hurt them in the short term, but it will hurt us in the long term, and we've been
saying this for a long time now.
Quite true. The Russian farmers are going to erect a statue of Obama for the sanctions which
greatly boosted the Russian agriculture by restricting import. The same effect will be on the
industrial production. The only class in Russia who will lose on that are the local Compradors
doing business on import and promoting the foreign control over the Russian market,
reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which
was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT).
America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan,
etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care
about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia
and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus
and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli
land grabs in the Golan and so on.
Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because
Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds
with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. ..
The rule of law and corruption have consistently improved under Putin, who reformed an oligarchic
state into a illiberal democracy WITH corruption problems (understandable after 70 years of Soviet
mismanagement and a decade of robber baron capitalism - eliminating social habits takes time).
The worst nightmare for the US is actually a Russia free of corruption.
"... Of course they are; and it's so bloody transparent that nobody is fooled. Please check the link below: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/eu-ready-retaliate-if-us-imposes-new-russia-sanctions/ri20467 ..."
"... The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out ..."
"... The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation. Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely dependent on an ignorant U.S. population. ..."
"... Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will be shocked to find they aren't well received. ..."
"... I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever part of the Russian society and economy and land they like. ..."
"... I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians. Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit. ..."
The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan
attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin
is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to
have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out
I dare say, Russia is more self sufficient than the U.S. and almost every other country on
the planet. Do the research; it's very enlightening.
The U.S. is a very jealous hegemon and can't bear this reality
Have you ever thought to question your comparitive references? Most views of Russia are western-centric
in the extreme. Russia is not western or European in any sense of that reality; Russia is a very
different culture/s and sees things drastically different than the western-centric POV. Just sayin
The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation.
Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely
dependent on an ignorant U.S. population.
Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations
to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political
structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will
be shocked to find they aren't well received.
I'm confused. Who was it who brought up "Russia is more self-sufficient than the US
and almost every other country on the planet? That implies that you feel self-sufficiency (with
respect to certain metrics) is something that one should value. Let's say other people do not
share that meta value: does that then mean they are wrong?
I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just
think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever
part of the Russian society and economy and land they like.
I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking
was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians.
Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit.
It's looking like quite the little diplomatic spat between the EU and Capitol Hill.
Here's the Russian envoy to the EU on talks to ban funding by EU banks for US business, if
the US law is declared invalid in the EU : http://tass.com/politics/957927
Note the bill bans not just business with Russians in Europe, but also Eurasia.
OBOR is clearly a target too.
So are the Chinese going to pipe up?
For this is nothing less than gloves – off imperialism .
Anyone know if it's possible the German's will act w/o the EU? In other words, unilaterally?
I'm asking because the article says EU may not be the "required" unanimous in responding to
the U.S. sanctions & LNG so there may not be an official EU retaliation (though it seems there
was much stronger opposition to the EU imposing Russian sanctions in 2014 in the first place but
supposedly that was a "unanimous" decision).
Will Germany be a total puppet to the U.S.? Or might it start to move towards Russia which
seems to be in Germany's business interest?
Germany wants to ensure stable gas supply for as long as possible. A pipeline thas goes through
the sea and does not depend on third countries that migth disconnect the pipeline (like Ukrania)
allows for a durable contract. So the US is not only intefering with russian interests but with
german ones. I don't think Germany considers US shale LNG supply a robust enough alternative competitive
in price and duration with russian gas. My guess is that in this case, Germany won't be a total
puppet.
Anti Schmoo put it very well "The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant"
EU has been following every global US initiative enthusiastically even though it only hurts
Europeans: wars and invasions, TTIP, TiSA, CETA etc.
On top of being emasculated and spineless with regards to national and continental interests
the current leaders of EU are neoliberals so they don't care about a new 'market solution' for
gas. Will subsidize the higher prices for companies while the citizens pay the price.
:) q.v. Frank Herbert's very old novel The Dragon in the Sea (aka Under Pressure
.) Being by Frank Herbert, it's about psychology, but it's also about petroleum pirating by submarine.
Yeah, I guess the price per barrel must have been pretty high.
The pipelines that go under the sea have lower capacities. They work to reduce the impact of
ukrainians et al blackmailing gas supplies. They do not eliminate the need to route gas overland.
He's an opportunitist and may advocate something one day and oppose it the next day.
He is absolutely not trustworthy. A total pushover.
And I wouldn't expect much from the rest of the german government, too.
The german media could pick it up and put pressure on politicians.
But due to the pathetic state the germain mainstream media are in (with exceptions),
I expect they'll just stop bringing up this issue and let people forget about it.
Maybe other european countries will be more resistant, maybe
Plus Japan -- a big LNG importer historically as it has no conventional energy sources of its
own -- is going to lessen its LNG demand as the
nuclear restart gathers pace. Whatever you might think of the safety aspects, Japan has 50+gW
of embedded nuclear generating capacity with a residual economic life of 20+ years on average.
It is simply inconceivable that this plant, much of which, unlike Fukushima which was end-of-life,
is mid-life and has decades of viable reactor runtimes available, will be mothballed and decommissioned
without generating another kW of power ever again.
The LNG glut will only continue and probably get noticeably worse once all, or at least the
vast majority, of Japanese reactors are brought back on line, which will be 5 years from now at
the outer limit. Cutting off Russian gas into Europe (and the rest of the world) will be a big
plus for the US. LNG liquefaction plant is a massive capital outlay, has big fixed costs
and is highly operationally geared, so even small reductions below peak output have a big hit
on plant profitability. It is those "wheels" the US plant operators will want to keep turning.
Conversely, the regasification plants (based in EU countries) don't need to operate flat out,
they're designed to have peaks and troughs as LNG consignments come in and get processed, then
sit around for a bit waiting for the next one. Which, again, is why the US is bothered about restricting
Russian supply, the EU not so much.
there is no surplus US LNG to be forced on Europe, it's a myth we are still importing more
natural gas from Canada than we are exporting to Mexico and liquifying for export moreover, our
own natural gas production has been falling year over year for 15 months straight i wrote about
exactly this situation two weeks ago:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/great-us-natural-gas-exports-myth-6112
all the data is included. you can repost it if you want.
we are contracting to sell US natural gas at below the cost of US production, and it's gonna come
back and bite US natgas users big time when a shortage develops here..
IS natgas users would be anyone who uses American electricity, right? Another 'regressive'
tax on the way. Really, this is not New Cold War oriented, but Class War materiel.
Time for work.
there's been a gradual shift back to coal for generating over the past half year or so whether
that's because of price or because the utilities see what's coming i couldn't tell you..
maybe i'm projecting too much, but i see us heading down the same path that Australia took
How energy-rich Australia exported its way into an energy crisis - Australia exported 62%
of its gas production last year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Yet its
policy makers didn't ensure enough gas would remain at home. As exports increased from new LNG
facilities in eastern Australia, some state governments let aging coal plants close and accelerated
a push toward renewable energy for environmental concerns. That left the regions more reliant
on gas for power, especially when intermittent sources such as wind and solar weren't sufficient.
Shortages drove domestic gas prices earlier this year in some markets in eastern
Australia
to as high as $17 per million British thermal units for smaller gas users such as manufacturers.
On the spot market, gas prices have gone from below $1 in 2014 to roughly $7 today .. In
March, Australia's largest aluminum smelter cut production and laid off workers because it said
it couldn't secure enough cheap energy.
the problem is that we are are contracting to export natural gas at today's low prices, which
wont pay for tomorrow's production..
The U.S. much like Team Blue hid behind our "cool" President and 9/11 for so long, no one knows
how to act. This is a trade war where we picked a fight with our most loyal vassals on behalf
of one industry which needs to be replaced anyway. Do you remember Hollande? He joined with Obama
against "OMG Russia." Macron's honey moon is over.
Due to resignations early in the Trump administration, and refusal of the Senate to approve
new FERC nominees, the FERC, whose approval is needed for building interstate energy transport
infrastructure, now lacks a quorum (having only 1 of the minimum 3 members out of 5 total). A
number of pipeline projects originating in marcellus were approved around end of 2016 prior to
the resignations, and are due to come on line in 2018, but many dozens more are now awaiting permitting -- both for domestic use and to transport to LNG export, as the piece above states.
The other interesting thing is that in the past, the explicit strategy of the US was to use
domestic natgas domestically, but no longer, it seems.
Pipelines would raise prices at the wellhead and lower prices elsewhere in the country. If
the lack of approval goes on for a few more years, it may have an impact on: the battle between
natgas and wind for the medium-term dominance of newly added utility scale electric generation
in the US, and the timing of how fast we can retire coal electric.
Lastly, besides Russia, Qatar is also a major natgas exporter to Europe, so they'll get their
gas either way, they'll just pay more. A points of reference there -- I belive Germany is currently
using coal as its main domestic baseload electric fuel – as prices were relatively high until
recently, they're using NG for home heating only. Now everyone needs to retire coal for obvious
reasons.
Jamming up FERC shouldn't be underestimated. They've got a huge amount of discretionary authority
to blast through state and local laws and regulations at will. It's amazing how the oil/gas industry
gets 1-stop shopping for all it's regulatory requirements.
It's sickening to see how much power the Petroleum companies have over Congress. Bribes work
well in our country. We need a wholesale re-haul of CON gress.
Regarding possible EU development of a spine, a recent George Webb video from just about 3
days ago said he's been told by some of his IC sources that Germany has been printing DMs on the
quiet. I take this with a pinch of salt but it's intriguing nonetheless. If true, Germany must
also be looking at the IT issue as well.
EU is still threatening to cancel Poland voting rights for 1 year, even after the President
vetoed the legislation regarding judiciary reform (which was to my understanding the main bone,
albeit the country is keen on going full Adolph). Maybe it has something to do with this?
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
Did you suggest it at the time? The newsflow is a gusher right now. It's simply not possible
to give notice to everything. So do feel free to stifle your amazement.
Adding, it is a very good story (although I'm not a Russia hand). So readers may enjoy it even
at this late date which was, I take it, the real point of your comment.
Plus the assertion of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election was never proven–it was only
asserted and repeated ad nauseum. Recent investigations have shown that in fact the DNC and Podesta
emails were insider leaks, they were not outsider hacks. The technical analysis showed evidence
that Russian "footprints" had been specifically inserted to cause Russia to be blamed.
In contrast the US has a well-established track record of meddling in other countries elections
and setting up regime change in various ways. Ukraine is one example, as Yves described. There
are many others, think of the US-sponsored coups in Latin America. They seem to be trying to pull
off another coup in Venezuela since their 2002 attempt didn't work out. And Obama didn't hesitate
to publicly endorse Macron just a couple days before the French election.
"the latest US sanctions against Russia, which passed the House today by a 419-3 margin ".
and
"Republicans and Democrats agreed almost unanimously, by 97 votes to 2 , to impose new sanctions
on Russia in the Senate on Wednesday"
I have been a member of many organizations, and do not recall seeing this kind of "unanimity"
when voting on significant and controversial resolutions. Clearly, a majority of US Americans
want peace, particularly with Russia (a Christian democracy). How and why did the People's Representatives/Senators
find the "courage" to vote against the People's wishes??? Hmmmmmmmm?
To put the vote into a context, 77 years ago; on
" ..July 14–15, 1940 – Rigged elections held in Latvia and the other Baltic states. Only one
pre-approved list of candidates was allowed for elections for the "People's Parliament". The ballots
held following instructions: "Only the list of the Latvian Working People's Bloc must be deposited
in the ballot box. The ballot must be deposited without any changes." The alleged voter activity
index was 97.6% . Most notably, the complete election results were published in Moscow 12 hours
before the election closed. Soviet electoral documents found later substantiated that the results
were completely fabricated. Tribunals were set up to punish "traitors to the people." those who
had fallen short of the "political duty" of voting Latvia into the USSR. Those who failed to have
their passports stamped for so voting were allowed to be shot in the back of the head.
July 21, 1940 – The fraudulently installed Saeima meets for the first time. It has only one
piece of business!a petition to join the Soviet Union. (The consideration of such an action was
denied throughout the election.) The petition carried unanimously. .."
Read Petrodollar Warfare and The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony for a start and a lot of
this will become more clear. The Iraq war, the U.S. instigated coup in Ukraine, U.S. backed attempt
at regime change in Syria and the demonization of Russia all concern oil supplies and who will
be allowed to supply what to whom, and more importantly in what currency such sales will be denominated.
All of this stuff is about trying to maintain the dollar's reserve currency status. Isn't this
becoming clear by now. Americans are still trying to understand why they invaded Iraq. Was it
WMDs, Al Qaeda, to bring freedom and democracy to the towel heads? Hussein decided in 2000 that
Iraqi oil sales would be denominated in Euros, three years later he was conveniently dead.
While I agree that the US has hegemonic aspirations, the petrodollar thesis is all wet.
Since the 1600s at least, countries have pursued mercantilist policies. That means first of
all that they like running trade surpluses. That allows them to have more jobs than their own
economies would support, keeping their citizens happy. They can also be net savers without having
a drag on the domestic economy.
But who will be the chump that exports jobs and has crappy growth to accommodate the mercantlists?
The US has signed up for that role, in large measure because the US cares more about the 1%, the
0.1%, and the interest of US multinationals than its citizens.
As long as everyone else wants to run trade surpluses and we are the only big player willing
to run sustained trade deficits, the dollar will remain the reserve currency. China has absolutely
zero interest in running trade deficits despite pining after the cachet of having the reserve
currency. The Eurozone maybe could have been a contender, but not with Germany being fiercely
mercantlist and Germany's insistence on not rebalancing within the Eurozone creating perceived
breakup risk.
@Yves
In order to answer your question to German language readers in the article.
There are several differences this time compared to previous instances of perhaps controversial
US-policy in Europe.
First of all the official positions of the German and Austrian government as well as the EU-Commission
are in harsh opposition to the bill while previously only opposition politicians or fringe business
interests voiced negative opinions.
Secondly the issue has been spread around in the relevant German business press a great deal,
yesterday alone about a dozen news agency reports were published, all with pretty much the same
tone and content. It has also been picked up by the op-ed pages in the papers today. This is in
stark contrast to previous instances like a leader from Die Linke blaming the refugee crisis on
US wars in 2015, Nato expansion to the east and troop build up in the Baltic or the planned upgrade
of US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. All three topics are out of mainstream discussion
and anyone bringing up a negative opinion, like the mentioned politician from Die Linke, is ridiculed.
Thirdly while the EU needs the approval of all members to establish sanctions it could do a great
deal to prosecute a trade war via executive decisions by the EU-Commission alone. While there
has been no official indication how the threatened retaliation is going to look like several simple
measures come to mind. For instance the EU could suspend the EU-US privacy shield agreement thereby
increasing the cost of doing business in the EU for US companies by a significant amount, it would
also be likely that cartell/market dominance investigations might result in harsher fines for
US companies and more restricted mergers, something which has been brought up by EU officials
sometime ago is to require all foreign or only US banking and maybe other financial institutions
to be seperate concerns with full capitalisation and no dependencies on the US-holdings.
To summarise: it looks like a significant amount of the German "business community" is not
amused and views the bill as a direct attack on its interests and tries to use their influence
with the goverment against it. This raises the likelihood of something more than mere talk to
above 0%. In any case the image of the US has taken another hit, this time with a group of people
with mostly very positive opinions about close US-German relations.
thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's
unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that
future historians will be long discussing.
more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american
efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi
gas and oil pipelines to europe.
the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other.
but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure,
so this, potentially, affects them, too.
All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to
renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start
pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that
have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective.
Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am
open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.
Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going
to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables.
Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities.
We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may
flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and
have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this
is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.
"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?
This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's
not let politics interfere with the right to make money?
The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and
its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response
to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had
an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided
vote on the latest sanctions.
The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed
on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni
of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?
Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.
Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a
result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich
would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went
through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.
Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government
positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing
of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.
Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin.
The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?
We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.
"... Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's extremely dangerous. ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries. ..."
"... Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of RootsAction.org , an online activist group. ..."
Whatever you think of Putin or Trump, they're presidents of nuclear superpowers: Opposing view
The drive to put more sanctions on Russia might feel good. But fueling a new Cold War can only
propel the United States in the wrong direction. It's time to turn away from a collision course,
not step on the gas.
Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents
of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's
extremely dangerous.
When this year began, the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists moved its risk-estimate Doomsday Clock closer to apocalyptic midnight
than at any time since 1953. "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions
needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon," the Bulletin 's expert
panel warned.
If new sanctions target Russia, the predictable results will include angry responses from the
Kremlin and more polarized attitudes in both countries -- damaging the prospects for any détente while
boosting a spiral of mutual hostility.
Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both
parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions
bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering
how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries.
On Russia sanctions, applaud Congress
Such a war would be horrific. "A war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals
would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable,"
according to Steven Starr, a former member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility national
board.
In a warning last winter, former Defense secretary William Perry said, "We're going back to the
kind of dangers we had during the Cold War." Those concerns are even more relevant and urgent now:
"We are starting a new Cold War. We seem to be sleepwalking into this
new nuclear arms race ."
While parading for sanctions against Russia, the sleepwalkers on Capitol Hill are endangering
the future of humanity.
Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of
RootsAction.org , an online activist group.
In December, President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two estates, one on
Long Island and one on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, in response to Russia's interference in the presidential
election the month before. Moscow did not respond at that time. it waited till 8 month till the end
of July.
The Russian foreign ministry now demanded that Washington cut its diplomatic presence in Russia
by September to 455 -- the same number Moscow has in the US.
MOSCOW - President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Sunday that 755 American diplomats would be
expelled from Russia by Sept. 1
... ... ...
Speaking in a television interview on the Rossiya 1 network, Mr. Putin said that Russia's patience
in waiting for improved relations with the United States had worn out.
"We waited for quite some time that maybe something will change for the better, had such
hope that the situation will somehow change, but, judging by everything, if it changes, it will
not be soon,"
"... About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness. Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy. As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military, intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests in maintaining enmity with Russia. ..."
About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness.
Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy.
As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with
Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military,
intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests
in maintaining enmity with Russia.
Washington of course refuses to say how many people work at the US Embassy in Russia: state
secret, you know, national security, could affect the lives of Americans. But Tefft is reported
to be not at all happy, while Russian sources say 'hundreds' will have to leave.
Do they know what they are doing? When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly
at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they
realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European "friends"?
Whether they know or not, they obviously don't care. U.S. politicians view the rest of the world
as America's hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July
25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all
but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.
This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to
be America's dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France. Who also sometimes happen
to be competitors, but such crass considerations don't matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress,
totally devoted to upholding universal morality.
Economic "Soft Power" Hits Hard
Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble.
In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline
designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.
By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas
to their German friends, at much higher prices.
That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling
restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.
While the U.S. preaches "free competition", it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition
at the international level.
Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international
sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign
bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group
calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran" which warns that "there remain serious legal, political,
financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors
of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas". The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.)
fines, surveillance by "a myriad of regulatory agencies", personal danger, deficiency of insurance
coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop
in shareholder value.
The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has developed
a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy thanks to the
omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain intimidation.
European leaders reacted indignantly to the latest sanctions. The German foreign ministry said
it was "unacceptable for the United States to use possible sanctions as an instrument to serve the
interest of U.S. industry". The French foreign ministry denounced the "extraterritoriality" of the
U.S. legislation as unlawful, and announced that "To protect ourselves against the extraterritorial
effects of US legislation, we will have to work on adjusting our French and European laws".
In fact, bitter resentment of arrogant U.S. imposition of its own laws on others has been growing
in France, and was the object of a serious parliamentary report delivered to the French National
Assembly foreign affairs and finance committees last October 5, on the subject of "the extraterritoriality
of American legislation".
Extraterritoriality
The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche, summed
up the situation as follows:
"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American legislation
whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic and political
imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always in the United States,
that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the best intentions in the world
since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power', that is a country that can only
do good."
Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the United
States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange American
law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having an American
subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based server, or even
by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion
dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions.
The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But because they dealt in dollars, payments
transited by way of the United States, where diligent computer experts could find the needle in the
haystack. European banks are faced with the choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of
restrictions and punishments before a verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate
lawyers, and entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge
the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.
Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high speed
trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of corruption
(probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its electricity branch
to General Electric.
The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S. firms
to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole range of U.S.
intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are engaged in commercial
espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, devoted to this
task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30 million. The comparable office
in Paris employs five people.
This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose European
banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning investments in the
vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.
This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down national
legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone else for anything,
with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the United States.
Wrecking the European Economy
Over a dozen European Banks (British, German, French, Dutch, Swiss) have run afoul of U.S. judicial
moralizing, compared to only one U.S. bank: JP Morgan Chase.
The U.S. targets the European core countries, while its overwhelming influence in the northern
rim – Poland, the Baltic States and Sweden – prevents the European Union from taking any measures
(necessarily unanimous) contrary to U.S. interests.
By far the biggest catch in Uncle Sam's financial fishing expedition is Deutsche Bank. As Pierre
Lellouche warned during the final hearing of the extraterritorial hearings last October, U.S. pursuits
against Deutsche Bank risk bringing down the whole European banking system. Although it had already
paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the State of New York, Deutsche Bank was faced with a "fine
of 14 billion dollars whereas it is worth only five and a half. In other words, if this is carried
out, we risk a domino effect, a major financial crisis in Europe."
In short, U.S. sanctions amount to a sword of Damocles threatening the economies of the country's
main trading partners. This could be a Pyrrhic victory, or more simply, the blow that kills the goose
that lays the golden eggs. But hurrah, America would be the winner in a field of ruins.
Former justice minister Elisabeth Guigou called the situation shocking, and noted that France
had told the U.S. Embassy that the situation is " insupportable " and insisted that "we
must be firm".
Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and eliminate competitors.
We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."
This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of "taxation
without representation" exercised by the United States against its European satellites. They committee
members all agreed that something must be done.
That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission chairman,
Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth Guigou (a leading
Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to inexperienced newcomers recruited
into President Emmanuel Macron's République en marche party. The newcomers are having a
hard time finding their way in parliamentary life and have no political memory, for instance of the
Rapport on Extraterritoriality.
As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings by
approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the United
States.
However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.
LOL! Naïve, I think. As long as European countries (and the UK) are prepared to carry on acting
as Washington's bitches, Washington will go on treating them as such.
The political, media and business elites need to be thoroughly cleansed of US apologists. That
won't be easy, especially when Europe and the UK are in the grip of an ideologically anti-nationalist
culture that is essentially treasonous and utterly lacking in national self-respect.
Ending NATO and suppressing the US-backed anti-Russian propaganda that keeps Europe and the
UK subordinate would be the bare minimum first steps, along with cooperating with China and Russia
to promote and use financial systems independent of the dollar.
or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise
can avoid
The countries that are regularly targeted for US bullying are building structures that avoid
vulnerability. European countries and the UK need to join with them in doing so (though it's unlikely
they will be trusted very far given their track records of collaboration with Washington).
Also companies that decline to deal in the US market should be protected and supported, on
national security grounds. It should be straightforwardly illegal in all sovereign countries for
the US to try to impose its laws on any company merely for dealing in dollars, and the US should
be held directly responsible when its courts seek to do so. US extraterritoriality has always
been a gross intrusion into and threat to national sovereignty.
In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine
billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S.
sanctions.
Ideally this kind of extortion will be to some extent counterbalanced by retaliatory extractions
from US business assets such as Google and Facebook.
entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar
to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers
urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences
The US plea bargain system is a disgrace to any kind of concept of justice and basically means
that no US confessions or guilty pleas can be regarded as meaningful, and nor should any sovereign
country agree to extradition of its own citizens to the US. It is basically a system of organised
blackmail, coerced confessions and corruption of witnesses.
Well, Europe could consider all of these payouts to the US as "reparations for Nazi atrocities".
This will make it go down easier, after all who wouldn't want to enslave himself to Yankees to
repair Nazi atrocities?
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable
fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically
John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA
included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the
deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided
with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice
and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump
is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA
has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.
The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC
was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill
Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment.
Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern
is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.
Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence.
Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based
on Actual Fact
The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation
Notable quotes:
"... CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. ..."
"... In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. ..."
"... CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. ..."
"... "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. ..."
"... The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. ..."
"... Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market." ..."
"... At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." ..."
Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international
broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were
recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's
favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims
in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case,
my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article
Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the
CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful
to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis .
(We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the
core premise of the report...").
Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in
that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of
their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's
a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for
"does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions.
It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned
comment added by 72.239.232.139
( talk
) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
"Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
- Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure
(PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular
public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores
these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that
enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an
entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound
to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity
of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market."
At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign
or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." --
87.159.115.250 (
talk )
17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded,
falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days
before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails
related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own
"forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy
(onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste
job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate
Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail
so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would
be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in
effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the
FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably
have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever
was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of
the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the
concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with
him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas
were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes
such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of
NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published
another in its highly
enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.
... ... ...
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected
to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device.
That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack
by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed
on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear
aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .
.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer
2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing
DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton
bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails?
The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.
"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have
emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to
insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."
. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a
copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with
a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by
doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.
Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to
publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims
to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move
to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually
the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..
What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television
interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably
anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not
on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but
on Russian meddling in the election.
This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak
but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.
Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian
intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would
want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?
As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike
was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that
the Russians were responsible.
Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which
is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer,
and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian
template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""
This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly
aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal
in effect a fraud.
Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the
DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the
fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade
the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would
presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.
The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the
absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack.
If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that
the evidence that there was is concocted.
Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the
creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover
his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic
narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such
people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.
What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to
be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers.
Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have
been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.
Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their
forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this
field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.
At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed
intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.
If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind
the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections
of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.
That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United
States is in profound crisis.
Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I
have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum
which points in that direction.
"... Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria, to be followed by additional truces, and ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic Jihad. It seemed...unreal. ..."
"... Peace-loving people around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge. ..."
"... Back in late March, the Trump administration had signaled its abandonment of regime change, with both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicating that Syrian President Assad's ouster was no longer a priority for the United States. But, within a week, Trump was hurling Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, purportedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons incident that only a fool or a U.S. corporate media hack would blame on Syria. ..."
"... Then, two months later, on June 26, in a bizarre episode even for Trump, the administration charged the Syria military with preparing to launch another chemical weapons attack , for which the Assad government would "pay a heavy price." Strangely, the White House seemed to have failed to notify either the Pentagon or the State Department about the Syria threat, or the proposed retaliation. ..."
"... Stranger still, Trump issued his weaponized rant during the same period when his administration must have been deeply engaged in negotiations on a cease-fire with the Russians. We at Black Agenda Report wondered whether Trump had gone " play-crazy " – "acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon." ..."
"... The demons at the Washington Post and the New York Times have only one explanation for all earthly phenomena, including the termination of the CIA's jihadist overseer duties in Syria: Trump is "colluding" with the Russians. The Times moaned that "the decision is bound to be welcomed by the Russians." The WP whined that "the Russian government had long opposed the program, seeing it as an assault on its interests." Neither paper is concerned that the CIA project violates international laws against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, as well as U.S. laws against giving material assistance to al Qaida, a prime beneficiary of CIA weapons, or that half a million Syrians have died, as a result. ..."
"... Despite his apparent vow of semi-silence on the CIA front, Trump could not resist a Twitter retort . "The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad," he wrote, effectively declassifying the now-defunct (are we sure?) CIA terror campaign. ..."
The crazed, racist, stupid, boorish man in the White House "this summer defied the War Party
and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several
regions of Syria, and possibly ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic
Jihad." Which makes him less dangerous to the human species than Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton.
"Donald Trump has taken the strangest, messiest route imaginable towards fulfilling his
campaign pledge to curtail Washington's urge to regime change, and to ease tensions with
Russia."
It's not like
Donald Trump to "stifle" himself, as TV's Archie Bunker used to say, but the president has been
relatively subdued about his decision, reportedly made last month, to
terminate
the CIA program
that has armed, trained, directed and protected jihadist fighters in Syria.
Trump's uncharacteristic reticence on the matter is understandable, given the agency's
homicidal culture and history.
It is also likely that Trump's gaggle of White House generals, led by Secretary of Defense
James "Mad Dog" Mattis and national security advisor H.R. McMaster, have kept the Pentagon in
check, preventing a reprise of
the mutiny
that sabotaged
President Obama's cease-fire and intelligence-sharing agreement with Russian forces in Syria,
on September 17 of last year. In a blatant rebellion against civilian authority, U.S. warplanes
killed 100 Syrian soldiers at Deir Ez-Zor, allowing ISIS to overrun half the city. The next
week, with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at his side, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman
Gen. Joseph Dunford
told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The U.S. military role will
not include intelligence sharing with the Russians." The Pentagon had "punked" lame duck
President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry.
"Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a
cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria."
Donald Trump took note, and surrounded himself with generals before setting foot in the
White House, perhaps to shield his presidency from falling prey to its own "
Seven Days In May
"-type scenario.
Or, maybe Trump the Bully just likes the company of other crude and stupid men. At any rate,
Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a
cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria, to be followed by additional truces,
and ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic Jihad. It
seemed...unreal.
Peace-loving people around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge.
Trump seemed to hold his breath -- and his tongue -- too, playing down the cease-fire
arrangement, even as French President
Emanuel Macron
stood at his side in Paris, July 13, telling the press: "No matter who they
are, we want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution. Against that background,
I do not require Assad's departure. This is no longer a prerequisite for France to work on
that, because I can only tell you that, for seven years, we did not have an embassy in
Damascus, and still we have no solution."
Trump was
remarkably low-key
in Paris: "We are working on a second ceasefire in a very rough part of
Syria," he said. "If we get that and a few more, all of a sudden, you're going to have no
bullets firing in Syria, and that is a wonderful thing."
People around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge."
Back in late March, the Trump administration had signaled its abandonment of regime change,
with both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicating that Syrian
President Assad's ouster was
no longer a priority
for the United States. But, within a week, Trump was hurling Tomahawk
missiles at a Syrian airbase, purportedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons incident that
only a fool or a U.S. corporate media hack would blame on Syria.
Then, two months later, on June 26, in a bizarre episode even for Trump, the administration
charged the Syria military with preparing to launch
another
chemical weapons attack
, for which the Assad government would "pay a heavy price."
Strangely, the White House seemed to have failed to notify either the Pentagon or the State
Department about the Syria threat, or the proposed retaliation.
Stranger still, Trump issued his weaponized rant during the same period when his
administration must have been deeply engaged in negotiations on a cease-fire with the Russians.
We at Black Agenda Report wondered whether Trump had gone "
play-crazy
" – "acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing
some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon."
Neither paper is concerned that the CIA project violates international laws against
unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, or that half a million Syrians have died, as a
result."
Or, maybe the outburst was prompted by an aborted attempt to scuttle the talks with the
Russians. Or, maybe Trump just had to shout the demons out of his system. Who knows?
The demons at the Washington Post and the New York Times have only one explanation for all
earthly phenomena, including the termination of the CIA's jihadist overseer duties in Syria:
Trump is "colluding" with the Russians. The Times moaned that "the decision is bound to be
welcomed by the Russians." The WP whined that "the Russian government had long opposed the
program, seeing it as an assault on its interests." Neither paper is concerned that the CIA
project violates international laws against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, as well as
U.S. laws against giving material assistance to al Qaida, a prime beneficiary of CIA weapons,
or that half a million Syrians have died, as a result.
Despite his apparent vow of semi-silence on the CIA front, Trump could not resist a
Twitter retort
. "The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive,
dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad," he wrote, effectively
declassifying the now-defunct (are we sure?) CIA terror campaign.
Donald Trump has taken the strangest, messiest, "play-crazy" (or just plain crazy) route
imaginable towards fulfilling his campaign pledge to curtail Washington's urge to regime
change, and to ease tensions with Russia. His presidency has been six months of pain and
confusion.
But, if Hillary Clinton had been elected, we might all be dead.
Why not? Russia does not have that many customers, it needs an independent arms industry and
spreading the costs by deals with China and India allows to be military competitive with USA in
spite of 10-fold gap in military spending.
Because the spending gap is so large, USA does not really have a problem with matching the
technologies, in fact usually it is a pioneer, and there is no problem in reverse engineering
what they did not engineer. Where USA has a problem, this is because some new technologies
subvert shield/sword balance required by American military doctrine. For example, the first
strike doctrine requires anti-missile weapon to mop up the hopefully few missiles that can
reach USA after that first strike.
Landing vehicles that can execute a series of turns at
highly supersonic speed can be reproduced by USA, but that would verge on pointless. What is
important to improve the missile defense so it can cope with missiles that behave in that nasty
way, and here there is a potential of improving the sword, the landing vehicles, faster than
the shield.
BTW, I do not follow the sword/shield logic on tank warfare. Reactive armor stopped being
adequate with the new generation of anti-tank weapons, and countermeasures seem very much
attuned to technology aspects that can change in few years.
So tanks may join chariots as a
military idea that had its day, but that day is gone (the last time chariots had a positive
impact on battles was nearly 100 years ago.
check "tachanka", although "technicals" share the
spirit, heavy machine gun type weapon mounted on a cheap civilian vehicle).
"... The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."*** ..."
"... By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards. ..."
"... "The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining." ..."
"... All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy ..."
"... American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm to sell. ..."
"... As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away, one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game. ..."
"... It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in gross violation of WTO rules as well. ..."
"The new sanctions expose the essential issues behind the "election hacking" campaign of
the US media and political establishment, spearheaded by the intelligence agencies that are
opposed to any shift away from the anti-Russia policy developed under the Obama
administration.
****
The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from
Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly
control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."***
"One key question now is how Europe will react," Sir Lyne says. "Over Ukraine, the US and
EU marched in step. That is not the case now; and the new bill has the potential to make
Europe pay a much higher price than the US."
The EU has never been more dependent on Russian gas, according to Bloomberg, as Russia's
state-run gas monopoly Gazprom now pumps over a third (34 percent) of Russia's gas. At
present, Gazprom has put the kibosh on one pipeline to the EU, known as South Stream but
agreed one that will bring gas on the EU's borders, to Turkey.
By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to
northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all
signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards.
Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, Austria's OMV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper
and Wintershall have agreed to work with Gazprom on the pipeline, collectively covering
around half of the nearly $11 billion cost.
The European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker warned Wednesday that Brussels needs
to act "within days" if the U.S. does provide Europe with reassurance that the sanctions will
not jeopardize EU interests. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity told
European news site EUobserver, that the European companies would likely not be punished by
the U.S. as part of the sanctions but called the situation a "risk" regardless.
"The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach
between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining."
All the europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That
will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy
Of course that is not going to happen, at least not publicly – there will be no
outward sign of European rebellion, because that would be 'playing into Putin's hands', and
the European elite still loathes Putin enough to not want to be seen doing that. At the same
time, Uncle Sam does not want to back down, and an arrangement – even secret –
that America would not apply the sanctions to European companies would completely nullify
their effect. European companies would simply ignore them and carry on with their plans. So
the possibility they might be invoked has to stay, with all the attendant fury that is likely
to cause. Juicy as a mango, I think. Official America has been a bully for so long that it's
the only problem-solving approach it remembers.
The question that keeps nagging at the corner of my mind, though, is "What if the USA were
successful at stopping the construction of Nord Stream II and Russia ceased transit through
Ukraine anyway?" After all, this whole effort is focused on forcing Russia to continue
transiting a big part of Europe's gas supplies through Ukraine, both to keep Ukraine viable
by forcing Russia to engage with it despite its objectionable ideological government, and to
keep Ukraine as a bargaining chip to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier.
Washington's assumption is that Russia will continue to transit gas through Ukraine if its
alternatives are removed – after all, it's just a big gas station, and it can't live
without its gas sales to Europe. But what if, once again, Washington guessed wrong? If I were
running Russia – let's pretend, because I'm not – I would orchestrate a series of
'rebel' sabotage attacks on Naftogaz's pipeline network, blowing up substantial parts of it,
and then use that as a reason to cease transit of gas through the line: it's just not safe. I
would then maximize transit through existing pipelines
except
Ukraine, perhaps
accelerating the completion of Turkish Stream, and publicly and loudly blame any shortfall on
American meddling – if Nord Stream had been twinned, you wouldn't have this problem. If
it were managed correctly and everything went according to plan, I think it would
resonate.
Also, Russia has reduced its dependence on energy exports. It might be worth it to allow a
scenario in which Washington got the opportunity to make up for Russian shortfalls, because
it would be a complete failure – the export capability is just not there, and if they
redoubled their efforts they would lose money like crazy because they could not do it for
Russia's prices. Either they would flop at the delivery end, or the Europeans would squeal
like pigs because their gas rates went out of sight, or Uncle Sam would take a bath on
American exports. Those are the only possible scenarios, it should be emphasized.
We have clear evidence that the politicians in the USA do not have a grip on Russia's economy
and exports dependence. By 2019 Russia will have a massive gas pipeline to China. Gas for
this pipeline has to come from somewhere and filling it up with Banderastan transit gas would
be a good start to put the USA and its EU colony in its place. According to the most recent
Awara Group report, the fraction of oil and gas industry in Russia is down to 8% of GDP. Not
only is Russia not dependent on oil and gas for its GDP, it will lose nothing by shifting
supply away from the EU.
American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's
piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It
would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will
remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes
from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm
to sell.
"The European powers reacted sharply yesterday to the US House of Representatives' passage
of a bill imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, indicating that it was
unacceptable to European interests and that the European Union (EU) was preparing retaliatory
measures."
"Angry commentary over the sanctions bill in the German press underscore that influential
forces in the German ruling class see the sanctions bill as yet further evidence of hostile
US intent towards Germany and Europe.
"What is particularly dangerous is that supporters of Russia sanctions in Washington are not
only trying to put Putin and Trump in the same bag, but also helping the US economy against
foreign competition," wrote the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Under the bill, the daily added,
"Europeans would be forced to burn less Russian natural gas and more American liquefied
natural gas. This is an unfriendly act, especially against Germany."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that, "with all due respect for the Senate and its
ambition to tie President Donald Trump's hands on Russia policy, the draft law is
unacceptable from a European perspective. First, it breaks the diplomatic alliance between
Europe and the United States in deciding on sanctions against Russia. The argument that
America is promoting Europe's energy security is also quite insolent. That is Europe's
responsibility. This is how you lose friends."
The question that is emerging is whether the US-EU military rivalry and bitter trade
conflicts will now coalesce and escalate into a catastrophic breakdown in US-EU relations!in
the form of a trade war that would bring the world economy to its knees, or of outright
military conflict."
Hmmm .So the RWETA is born.. Russia &Western EuropeTrade Allliance
Why make it more complicated than it is? The French are in the lead for once – such
sanctions are a violation of international law. Consequently no other nations are obligated
to abide by them. If America levied a massive fine against BASF Wintershall, and that company
simply ignored it, what would America do? Start booting out German companies in the USA? Melt
BMW's and pour them down the drains in the street?
As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away,
one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and
fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now
that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin
probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game.
The really funny part in this, from my viewpoint, is the way the Europeans blame Trump and
his presidency. Granted, he did frame the 'America first' policy, but that's just a
convenient handle for the angry Europeans to grab. Trump entered office with the declared
intention of mending the damaged relationship with Russia, and it was the Democrats who
created an hysterical firestorm of accusation that Russia had greased Trump's way into
office. It has been ideologues outside Trump's circle who crafted the sanctions legislation
with a view to preventing him from lifting the sanctions under his own recognizance.
It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of
small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse
only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in
gross violation of WTO rules as well.
Europe hosts US military bases that threaten Russia. Europe has backed Washington's wars of
aggression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Washington's air attacks on
provinces of Pakistan, and Washington's use of Saudi Arabia to fight its proxie war against
Yemen.
Europe has backed Washington's gratuitous economic sanctions against Iran and Russia,
sanctions that have cost Europe much and Washington little.
Accustomed to having its way with Europe, Washington commits Europe without even consulting
the vassal governments. Now it seems Washington's extraordinary arrogance and hubris has
resulted in overreach. Confronted with a new round of sanctions against Russia, Jean-Claude
Juncker, president of the European Commission told Washington that the time has passed when
Washington can put its interests first and Europe's last.
The new sanctions have devastating economic and political consequences for Europe. Juncker
said that if Europe's "concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act
appropriately within a matter of days."
The German and French foreign ministries added their support to Juncker. The German foreign
ministry said: "It is not in the Americans' right to judge or stipulate which way European
companies may engage in cooperation with any third parties – particularly, with Russian
energy companies."
The French foreign ministry said: the sanctions "contradict international law" due to their
"extraterritorial reach."
Europe views the sanctions as a tool of US industrial policy that elevates US business
interests over Europe's business interests.
Let's hope that Washington's arrogance will not permit Washington to back down and that
Europe will give Washington the finger and disengage from the American Empire. Without Europe
to host its military bases and to parrot its propaganda, Washington's ability to threaten
Russia would significantly decline. Indeed, a continuation of the hostile threatening attitude
toward Russia would leave Washington isolated in the world. No country wants the risk of
experiencing nuclear war merely for the sake of Washington's unilateralism.
"They need the Germans/EU to actually start a serious pushback"
Fully agree. And as another commenter here stated the sanctions are as much against Germany
as against Russia.
The question in my mind is the timing and force. Germany has to maintain a cohesive Europe while
managing relations and antagonisms between US and RF. RF is also mindful of this and I doubt Putin
would willingly make things difficult for Merkel.
A measured, long-term approach is what we're seeing and the US sanctions are a.kid throwing
his toys put of the pram ... The US wants an over-reaction to this childness.
Thanks for the replies! Lots to think and write about, so hard to focus.
Seems to me the newest sanctions are also a test to see if the EU Parliament and EC will remain
corrupted and thus bow down and allow the sanctions to ruin EU's economy.
The only way out I can see is for the EU to call-out
all
the Big Lies upon which the
entire sanctions regime is based beginning with the still referred to Big Lie that Russia invaded
Georgia in 2008 instead of the proven truth--Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Then there are the
tremendous number of Big Lies aimed at Iran, which began in 1979, but which were greatly escalated
by BushCo and its Greater Zion project.
Opening an aggressive investigation into Clinton Foundation illegalities within EU would also
help. Logic suggests Europeans must switch sides at some point, overthrowing the Atlanticists
and embrace Eurasianism and its Multipolar Alliance. Unfortunately, I believe the EU's corrupted
beyond all hope and it will submit--
again
. It seems there's only one real Champion of
European Independence and it's Vladimir Putin.
@zzzzzzz " but the
Deep State knows how to box"
Let's see: "What Are the Democrats Hiding?"
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her
office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange?
"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to
her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman
from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing
this matter."
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/exclusive-fbi-seized-smashed-hard-drives-from-wasserman-schultz-it-aides-home/
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information
technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time
right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives
back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially
illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven
blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? " free access
to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers ."
Sounds like you're talking about Debbie and the DNC.
"... The U.S. just ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent action is expected. ..."
"... Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. ..."
"... If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this. ..."
"... In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices. Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement. ..."
"... People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines, kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has also increased. ..."
"... Telesur on the food crisis - yes it exists Due to fixed prices that make it possible to reexport with a profit. ..."
"... Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest." ..."
"... Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges in Brazil and Colombia ..."
"... Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes. The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that. ..."
On Sunday Venezuela will hold an general election of participants of a constitutional assembly.
Half of the representatives will be elected from regular electoral districts. The other half will
be elected from and by eight special constituencies like "workers", "farmers", "employers", etc.
The second part may be unusual but is no less democratic than the U.S. system which gives voters
in rural states more weight than city dwellers.
The new assembly will formulate changes to the current constitution. Those changes will be decided
on in another general vote. It is likely that the outcome will reinforce the favorite policies of
a great majority of the people and of the social-democratic government under President Manduro.
The more wealthy part of the population as well as the foreign lobbies and governments
have tried to prevent or sabotage the upcoming election. The U.S. has used various economic pressure
points against the Venezuelan government including economic warfare with ever increasing
sanctions . The opposition has held violent street rallies, attacked government institutions
and supporters and called for general strikes.
But the NYT propaganda
pictures of opposition rallies in the capitol Caracas show only small crowds of dozens to a few
hundred of often violent youth. The opposition calls for general strikes have had little resonance
as even the feverish anti-Maduro Washington Post has to
concede :
In the wealthier eastern half of the city, most businesses closed to support the strike called
by the opposition, which is boycotting the vote and calling for its cancellation.
The main highways of the capital city were largely closed down in the early morning , and reports
surfaced of national police lobbing tear gas at strikers in the center. In the poorer neighborhoods
in the west, the strike appeared less pronounced , with more businesses open and more people on
the streets.
(Translation of the WaPo propagandese: "Not even the rich opposition neighborhoods of the city
closed down completely. Attempts by the opposition to block central roads were prevented by the police.
In the poorer parts of the city the opposition call for a strike was simply ignored.") The opposition
is only active within the richer strata of the population and only in a few big cities. The poor
rural areas have gained under the social-democratic governments and continue to favor it.
In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times the "regime change" lobby of the Washington Office on
Latin America (WOLA)
laid out the steps towards an upcoming war in Venezuela:
Since the plebiscite, Venezuela's opposition has taken steps toward establishing a parallel government.
This might remain a symbolic initiative. But if the opposition continues down this road, it will
soon be looking for international recognition and funding, and will at least implicitly be asserting
the parallel government's claim to the legitimate monopoly on the use of force. After that it
will seek what every government wants: weapons to defend itself. If it succeeds, Venezuela could
plunge into a civil war that will make the current conflict seem like high school fisticuffs.
(The WOLA was also
involved in Hillary Clinton's coup in Honduras.)
In one of the clearest clues yet about Washington's latest meddling in the politics of Latin America,
CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was "hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and
we the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there".
He added: "I was just down in Mexico City and in Bogota a week before last talking about this
very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do so that they can get a better
outcome for their part of the world and our part of the world."
The piece notes:
In Venezuela, [the U.S. government] has sought to weaken the elected governments of both Mr Maduro
and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup. Some of the effort has
been in distributing funds to opposition groups through organisations such as the National Endowment
for Democracy, while some has been in the form of simple propaganda.
In May 2016 unidentified US officials told reporters in a background briefing that Venezuela
was descending into a deepening "crisis" that could end in violence.
We can conclude that the upcoming violence in Venezuela is not a spontaneous action of the opposition
but the implementation of a plan that has been around since at least May 2016. It is likely to follow
the
color revolution by force script the U.S. developed and implemented in several countries over
the last decade. Weapon supply and mercenary support for the opposition will come in from and through
the neighboring countries the CIA head visited.
The vote to the constitutional assembly will proceed as planned. The opposition will attempt to
sabotage it or, if that fails, proceed with violence. Weapons and tactical advice and support have
likely already been provided through CIA channels.
The Venezuelan government is supported by a far larger constituency than the U.S. aligned right-wing
opposition. The military has shown no sign of disloyalty to the government. Unless there is some
unforeseeable event any attempt to overthrow the government will fail.
The U.S. can further hurt Venezuela by closing down oil imports from the country. But this will
likely increase U.S. gas prices. It would create a some short term inconvenience for Venezuela,
but oil is fungible and other customers will be available.
To overthrow the Venezuelan government has been tried since the first election of a somewhat socialist
government in 1999. The U.S. instigated coup in 2002 failed when the people and the military stood
up against the blatant interference. The "regime change" methods have since changed with the added
support of a militant "democratic opposition" fed from the outside. The use of that tool had negative
outcomes in Libya and Ukraine and it failed in Syria. I am confident that the government of Venezuela
has analyzed those cases and prepared its own plans to counter a similar attempt.
The U.S. just
ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent
action is expected.
Posted by b on July 28, 2017 at 05:52 AM |
Permalink
I noticed the an article in Reuters on US evacuating embassy families and took it to mean a US
coup was underway. Hopefully Venezuela has some countermeasures in place.
b, I don't see any mention of Russia's involvement in Venezuela. It's my understanding Russia
has some arm's agreement with the government. Any information on that?
"The Russian state-owned Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based
refiner Citgo [...] If Rosneft decides to up that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject
to Russian sanctions."
link
Yep, the problem Venezuela's Minister of Economic Planning describes is that they fund subsistence
goods and fix prices. So people smuggle stuff out of the country and make money on the difference
to the market price.
They can't just print money and expect to get Dollar for that. That is not economic war. You
seem to be able to
make counterfeit
dollars from Venezuelan currency though - that is the only explanation for the smuggling of
currency out of the country.
It is futile to try an economy like that in a country like Venezuela. It kind of worked in
the Soviet block with a tightly controlled iron curtain. People reverted a lot to exchanging goods
directly there, as the planned distribution did not work. The only socialism that works is to
hand the people the money to afford the market price (and to tax it from people who own more than
they can spend).
Venezuela's countryside will be ok via subsistence farming. The problems in the cities must
be huge.
A couple of months ago that Brazilian far right parasite called Temer invited the US military
to his country that borders Venezuela to the north.
Brazil Invites US to Use Amazon Military Base
The Venezuelan gov't probably still has a large portion of 100,000 aces up their sleeves. 100,000
Kalashnikovs sold to Venezuela in the late 2000's and a licensed factory to produce more near
completion. And a significant number of Russian helicopters and other arms. I think the US-backed
"opposition" knows an attempted Maidan-redux will end with a lot of dead rich Venezuelan collaborators.
The gov't police are containing the "youth gangs", which will not provide the type of large scale
"protester" cover the US/NATO "special forces" snipers used to kill both police and protesters
in Kiev. The US/Zionist regime-change script is well known to average Venezuelans, tough to recruit
dupes to march/riot on behalf of US-paid agitators.
Whoever the Venezuelan Porkyshenko and "our man Yats" are, they better look to their own safety
rather than thinking the US will be able (or willing) to protect them when the SHTF. The US "diplomatic"
(read CIA/black-ops command) corps pulling out means the "opposition" leaders are on their own.
Funny thing about bully-cowards the US backs... they all all tough guys as long as there is a
lot of dupes between them and the gunfire, but are sniveling weaklings when confronted without
their CIA-paid thugs.
Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering in another sovereign
country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch stealing natural
resources?
Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as
government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist
masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military.
A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire.
Maduro, like Chavez before him, depends on thousands of Cuban military and intelligence officials
who are in Venezuela to prop up his regime. Many of those Cubans are embedded in the Venezuelan
military, working as snitches and hampering chances the armed forces could splinter and support
the opposition's efforts to end Maduro's dictatorship.
In 2002, while still serving as mayor, López participated directly in the U.S.-backed coup
attempt aimed at removing democratically elected President Hugo Chávez from power. López specifically
participated in the illegal detention of then-Minister of the Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez
Chacín, as well as violent attacks against Caracas' Cuban Embassy that saw a group of protesters
try to violently enter the building. When they could not force their entry, they cut off water
and electricity to the building and smashed windows and vehicles.
Chávez pardoned López for his role in the coup in 2007 and López was only barred from holding
political office from 2008 to 2014 following the revelation of his past corrupt dealings at
PDVSA, as well as the discovery of his misuse of public funds while mayor.
If Lopez did this in the United States or any European country do you think he would be out
of jail?
The US is getting its ass handed to it in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, the Philippines, China,
North Korea. It is acting just like its owner -- whenever Israel is frustrated it takes out its
frustrations on the poor Gazans. The US takes it out on some usually hapless and defenseless country.
I'm don't know a whole lot about the current situation in Venezuela, but I do know that the
sources you reference are not going to provide independent reliable information about the sitution
there; what you're linking to looks more like propaganda for domestic consumption.
If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference
in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties
to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones
couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this.
In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic
growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter
about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because
Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much
higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices.
Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the
need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement.
The US State Department / CIA game is pretty obvious, their goal is to work with the Venezuelan
plutocratic families to overthrow the government, after which the state-owned oil companies will
be privatized and a controlling share >51% will be offered to Exxon or Chevron, and they'll then
be called a model of humanitarian and democratic values by the State Department (now conveniently
headed by Exxon's agent, Rex Tillerson). Same old repetitive bullshit, in other words. If you
want more details, see Steve Coll, author also of Ghost Wars (on Afghanistan and the rise of the
Taliban, Al Qaeda and bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvPobwco-AE
This kind of crap doesn't benefit the average American citizen in any way; all the proceeds
go to Exxon's executives and their billionaire shareholders. All the money wasted on these neoliberal
projects would be far better spent building out our domestic infrastructure at home.
b
Excellent analysis. I'm up to date another regime changes in Venezuela as I was in Ukraine (2013).
Abby Martin was in Venezuela last week interviewed the oppositions (TRNN and Telesur). Russia
and China
seem to be the only major players supporting Mr Maduro for now. Thanks
After the failure of the 'regime change' in Syria, the CIA and the neo-cons are itching to get
one in Venezuela where Russia can't intervene easily. Hopefully it will fail again.
I heard Iran and Hizbullah have a huge underground presence in Venezuela helping Maduro. Just
kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the WaPo and NYT.
17) None of the information is independent, reliable. All claims are based on reality, the difference
is the evaluation.
You can't compare a huge country like Russia, with a new post-soviet oligarchy, and a small
country like Venezuela with heavy dependence on the United States (and new dependence on China)
with an old traditional oligarchy.
But whatever, Venezuela is in a constitutional crisis, a parliament opposed to the government.
To solve that on the street means civil war.
Just another day at the office. Meanwhile Wasserman -Schultz and the DNC get exposed with more
shenanigans with the Pakaistani IT guys . Further more to find out that Wasserman -Shchultz brother
is overlooking the case. Talk about an inside job.
The Congress has just extended its act of war on Russia,Iran and North Korea but hell to quote
Hitler in Drag (Hillary) What difference does it make.
How western history repeats itself as we enter this age of absurdity. We are entering a period
very similar to the build up of WW1 . Is humanity that blinded?
This is all going to end very badly. Will Europe finally come out of its vassal like slumber to
these vile anglo-zionist whom have poisoned western civilisation from the assassination of Lincoln
and McKinley to the greatest theft of them all the 10nth crusade on the ME.
Are we all that blind. Look at Temur in Brazil knee deep in government fraud and Rouseff gets
impeached on trumped up accusations along with Lulu. Are we that ignorant and self absorbed that
we the sheeple not c the writing on the wall.
Chile all over again this time with boo Kissinger to lead the way.
How Ironic that Kissinger and Obama both recipients of the Nobel peace prize never get challenged
on their crimes against humanity.
Sorry no its not related to the Venezuela imbroglio but they are connected to this evil BY DECEPTOION
YOU MAY WAGE WAR just to coin the famous moto of the Rothschild secret service.
@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime
change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about
Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran -
making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest.
And this is the problem with US foreign policy these days - rather than being more competitive
than China or anyone else, rather than saying we'll give you a better deal if you do business
with us, it's always "do business with us on our terms or we'll stage a coup and plunge your country
into civil war." You know this perfectly well, as do all the owners of the sources you reference,
like the NYTimes, (notable cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with all the BS about
WMDs), etc.
It's called the Tonya Harding model of economic competition - rather than being the best, the
goal is to kneecap anyone who gets in the way. Second rate, isn't it?
"Democratic opposition" is impossible under the rules defined by this website. Any attempt to
oppose the policy of a favored government is inherently branded "violent" or "terrorist".
Sure, taking a helicopter and strafing government buildings as a means of "political opposition",
that's not violent, that's not terrorism. Pfffffttttt... cn you imagine what people would be saying
if a Muslim member of some domestic U.S. police agency did that???? FFS. Did the US State Department
condemn that action? Not at all.
thanks for keeping up with this, b. may i add that the misionverdad link at hemendik 4 is key
to the emergency speed at which this is progressing now. this has both the misionverdad.com english
exposé, but also news of an even larger Exxon 'discovery' field off the coast of VZ that's claimed
by guyana. as far as i can make out, the UN case hasn't been settled yet, but you know that Tillerson's
attorneys, nikki haley, et.al., w/ a bit of help from all the compromised NGOs will get it done.
will the military keep supporting the chavistas? so far they have, and have even written open
letters to Trump, Pompeo, with their collective middle fingers extended.
Maduro Calls on Trump to 'Stop Aggression Towards Venezuela'
Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to "extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him
that we're in the 21st century."
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro reiterated that his country wants to live in peace during
an interview with RT Spanish Wednesday.
Faced with a new round of U.S. sanctions against 13 Venezuelan senior officials, Maduro urged
U.S. President Donald Trump to exercise reason and halt his administration's interventionist policy
in Venezuela.
"As president, I appeal to him, to President Donald Trump: Stop aggression towards Venezuela.
Venezuela is a fundamental basis of stability in the whole Caribbean Basin," Maduro said.
Contemplating an eventual meeting with Trump, Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to
"extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him that we're in the 21st century." He added that U.S.
officials should "dismiss the Monroe Doctrine" because times have changed and these times required
an acceptance of "diversity and new, more advanced relationships."
Venezuela's head of state noted that U.S. foreign affairs strategists should deliberate with greater
rationale and end their aggressive stance because "Venezuela wants to live in peace, it wants
to live quietly."
He emphasized, however, that if the situation deteriorates beyond the harmonious confines of dialogue
and peace, something that the people of Venezuela desperately want, "the Bolivarian Revolution
will have to take up arms and, once again, we'll be fighting under the same flag."
Confronted by an emboldened opposition which has been documented to work closely with sanctions-wielding
Washington, Maduro recalled that he'd spent almost the entire month of May "seeking direct dialogue"
with them in order for Venezuelan society as a whole to "become members of the Constituent Assembly,
but they refused."
Adding that his political adversaries have ventured to "the radical right," skirting even traditional
allies "who voted for them," Maduro admitted that his greatest error as president was to "underestimate
the opposition, their capacity to inflict damage, their malice, their capacity for violence."
Maduro also announced that Venezuela will sign new gas and oil agreements with Russia, as he emphasized
the importance of maintaining good economic partnerships with major powers.
"For the second half of the year, important documents will be signed to expand bilateral investments
between Russian oil and gas companies and our PDVSA," Maduro told Russia Today.
The announcement comes as the United States increasingly threatens and enacts sanctions against
Venezuela. On Wednesday the U.S. Treasury Department made good on Trump threats to impose sanctions
on the country if the National Constituent Assembly vote went forward on Sunday, July 30.
Maduro confirmed that despite U.S. attempts to rattle Venezuela's economy via an "indirect blockade,"
the country is equipped to meet all challenges. The end game of such obstruction, as was attempted
in 2015 and 2016, Maduro argued, is to force Venezuela's economy to default.
Despite these attempts, he said that the country has always "paid its bills, met its obligations."
In the event of a complete cutoff between Caracas and Washington, Maduro assured that "the roads
leading to the west, to the south, and to the east, fortunately, will stay open for Venezuela."
Maduro explained that it is essential to maintain good relations and strong partnerships with
major global economic powers like Russia and China, and that he was thankful for the solidarity
expressed to Venezuela by these nations.
The president said that Russian-Venezuelan relations are "advancing at a good pace," particularly
in the realm of oil, considering the significant investments that Russia has in the Orinoco oil
fields.
In addition to oil trade, the two countries share a broad range of mutual cooperation encompassing
over 200 agreements in fields ranging from medicine to tourism, agriculture, and mining.
thanks b.. i hope you are wrong, but 60 years of usa bullshit intervention suggests you are right!
these fuckers just can't stop it.. all in the name of exxon or whatever other kleptomaniac they
have yanking their strings...
many good and informative comments... thanks everyone..
i agree with @17/23 nonsense factory viewpoint.
@ 24 Inkan1969... huh? are you trying to suggest the venezuala opposition is the new improved
version of the '''moderate rebels''' the usa and it's buddies support in syria? give it up.. this
colour revolution, moderate rebel, opposition crap is stale..
Thank you for that. His words are such a contrast in style with those coming from the petulant
man-child the US currently calls president. I wish more Americans could see their country for
the latest projection of private finance empire that it really is.
Thanks b for the depth and breadth of the journalism that you share.......I am happy and impressed
that you don't just report on Syria as an earlier commenter would have you do......
Hope Maduro leave the country soon or least let us to have the peace he can't provide. It is
a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by him and Hugo
Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy, its productivity, while being reliant on
high oil prices that didn't last enough to make a good transition towards communism but instead
created the perfect storm to let people know that we don't want to elect another socialist president
never again in our life.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."-JFK
Can't the US stay out of any other people's business?
Humanity must sanction the US before it brings on even greater disasters.
I wish millions of Americans would march on Washington to end its nonsense.
@ Enrique Mendoza who claims to live in Venezuelan
Thank you for your comment. Please share with us your social and economic background.......America
is still propped up by those that think they stand to "lose" with socialistic economies....are
you one of those, is my question?
i believe that the perfect storm that you are referring to was caused by the world of global
private finance and not through the fault of Chavez or Maduro. And that perfect storm is now being
writ large all over the world.....we will see how it plays out.
Good, somewhat long, article on Venezuela is Greg Grandin's "
Down
from the Mountain ." Grandin argues that the working class will remain loyal to the government:
Marches and countermarches are usually a signal that history is on the move, that change, of
some kind, is coming. But Venezuela is in stasis. Negotiations between the government and its
opponents are announced, and then called off. The Vatican says it will mediate and the Organisation
of American states says it will intervene, but nothing happens. Both sides, it seems, are waiting,
tremulously, for the barrios populares,filled with working-class people, to render their verdict.
Anti-government forces have called on them to join their protests, and have even encouraged
them to loot and riot. These calls, for the most part, have gone unanswered. As the historian
Alejandro Velasco has pointed out, Chávez acknowledged these people on a primal level, recognising
them as citizens with legitimate demands and fundamental rights. In exchange, they turned out
again and again on the streets and at the polls to defend the Bolivarian revolution. In contrast,
anti-government forces want them as shock troops to break the deadlock. Maduro may have lost
their goodwill, but social gains won in the heyday of Chavismo – schools, food distribution
centres, health clinics, daycare – are still functioning, however stressed, in these neighbourhoods,
and while their residents may not be actively supporting the government, they aren't yet ready
to overthrow it. Meanwhile Chávez, in death as in life, continues to transcend the polarisation.
According to a recent poll, 79 per cent picked him as the best president the country has ever
had. A slightly smaller but still large majority say he was Venezuela's most democratic and
efficient leader.
I strongly hope a war can be avoided in Venezuela, but if not it will be as difficult for the
u.s. to ram through a regime change as in Syria. If they insist this will be another humilation
for them.
I'm recently graduate myself in high school but I'll start studies in the School of Economy
in here, therefore I've been studying the economy of Venezuela by at least 4 years with the resources
I have (internet mostly), its history and also political science to understand the crisis in my
own country, knowing that I'm prepare myself to improve my country in the future.
I believe every country always must a balance between socialism economic policies and capitalism.
The thing is that every economy in the world does have capitalism as its main socioeconomic system
where they use "socialist" policies published as state welfare only to improve what capitalism
can't. In other words, these countries use welfare policies to improve their capitalist system,
totally avoiding the philosophic and behavioral implications of having a socialist economy; they
don't try to abolish the state to implement better healthcare, or abolishing the money to create
foods programs.
Only Cuba and Venezuela don't have capitalist economies because the economic system was replaced
by socialism.
Chávez and Maduro caused this nightmare. Both worked to destroy capitalism, they then had to
afront the consequences of that; the difficulty to have commercial relations with other countries
that aren't socialist at all. This wasn't a problem for Chávez at the beginning because Venezuela
has the biggest oil reserves, I'd say oil market is the biggest in the world, and he used strategically
to make the entire country economy reliant on oil while Venezuela oil passed to be controlled
by the executive power when he nationalized the oil industry in 2003-2004. He used this economic
power to replace non oil productivity with imports which caused less productivity in Venezuela,
lack of investment in our industries.
This lack of investment now has its roots for the crisis happening now. Hugo Chávez and Maduro
got into massive debt Venezuela can't pay back because oil income isn't enough. Imports decreased
massively and there wasn't any replacement due lack of internal productivity. There you have the
food and medicine shortage.
What was Maduro and Chávez problem's? They never foreseen the oil glut. They thought China
economy would grow indefintly and they also thought that the US could never increase its oil productivity
for energy independence. They also failed at replacing peacefully the production method because
the economic crisis started before they could achieve the transition towards communism.
"It is a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by
him and Hugo Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy"
This is nonsense. I have family in Venezuela and I've traveled there a bit. Venezuela has always
been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for a looooong time. What changed
is that the small, formerly privileged middle class that is primarily composed of white people
living in the nicer parts of Caracas are now suffering whereas they used to live quite well. Some
of the suffering is real due shortages of certain things (corn flower, etc) but a lot more is
a rollback of privilege - " oh no we can't travel to the US to shop or travel to Europe." Still
more of the suffering is imaginary and simply a regurgitation of right wing Venezuelan media.
The Gabby Martin Telesur video touches on this but speak with Venezuelans of the middle class
and you'll hear the exact same script, a small amount of which is true but most can be debunked
easily.
It's silly and unnecessary that there be any CIA involvement. Chavez began the downward path toward
economic failure and Maduro threw gasoline on the ensuing fire.
When your outgo exceeds your income, economic failure is inevitable.
Like Brook Benton sang, "It's Just A Matter Of Time".
@ Desertrat who seems to have strayed into the wrong bar
Thanks for stopping by.
I don't think you are going to find too many patrons at this bar who believe the song you are
singing......don't let them doors hit you on the way out.
@Alaric "Venezuela has always been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for
a looooong time"
Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. You can read the government responses
to the crisis, they have admited several times that food shortage is real and that medicine shortage
is a real danger affecting even the highest govenrment officials and their family members, like
the ex wife of Hugo Chávez who has needed to ask for donations for medicines that can't be found
in any part of Venezuela.
You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because you
can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.
I'd suggest you to stop spreading misinformation and government propaganda if you really want
to have a discussion about Venezuela.
t is not just Venezuela's political stability that is at stake either. The Russian state-owned
Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based refiner Citgo following
a $1.5 billion loan from the Russian company. Some lawmakers say they are concerned that Russia
is in a position to own a substantial stake of the U.S.-based company.
On Thursday, Treasury officials fined ExxonMobil $2 million for signing business agreements
with Igor Sechin, the chief executive of Rosneft. Exxon responded by filing a legal complaint
against the Treasury Department.
"This is more than just the U.S. and Venezuela," said Juan Gonzalez, a deputy assistant
secretary of state under Obama. "Let says PDVSA is in a situation where it defaults, which
would affect Citgo. Then Rosneft has a 49 percent stake in Citgo. If Rosneft decides to up
that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject to Russian sanctions."
Thanks, b.
This latest Yankee Regime-Change Plot in Venezuela comes complete with the tr-r-aditional pre
R-G contradictions which, as usual, the disgusting Jew-controlled Western MSM (led, predictably,
by the Jew York Times (and Zio-Jazeera!!!)) is 'mysteriously' reluctant to explore, or even mention.
Venezuelan Democracy is either on its last legs, or it's not.
-If it is on its last legs then why not just wait for the Govt to collapse and let Venezuelans
solve the problem? Why does AmeriKKKa feel obliged to take sides and interfere? How does political
unrest in Venezuela suddenly become AmeriKKKa's problem? And why promote civil war as the only
possible outcome/solution?
Funnily enough, BBC wasn't reporting on Venezuela today. They're using infantile MI6 NK-hater/liar
Rupert Wingfield-Hayes to promote the Alternative/Fake News story from AmeriKKKa about North Korea's
latest missile test on Friday "thought to have landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone" and
blaming China. So NK missiles are shaping up to be the MSM's Talking Point to get Venezuela out
of the Headlines when Christian Colonialism needs some time out to fine-tune the Venezuela horseshit
it feeds to the MSM.
Funnilier, the early BBC report about NK missiles began with "AmeriKKKa has detected a missile
launch.." with some half-assed SK & Japan confirmation drivel; but a later report begins "SK &
Japan have detected a missile launch.."
Apologies for the long meandering comment but the Western MSM should be Crucified for its toxic
lack of curiosity.
If you just graduated from high school you are probably too young to know the darker side of
how the world works. I highly recommend you read John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".
#31: If you define doubling GDP and reducing extreme poverty by over 2/3 as destroying the economy
then yes, Chavez and Maduro are 100% to blame for 'destroying' the Venezuelan economy.
This claim of destroying the economy is frequently used by US media hacks and the opposition
in Venezuela, but the numbers are completely against you.
I would suggest you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to get a glimpse of how the global
money folk have R2Ped most of South America.
You need to consider your values around private ownership of property, inheritance, public
commons and other concepts. I encourage you to keep clear what is concept (all those "...ism"s)
and what is real (private ownership of global finance) Good luck!
#45: GDP per capital has decreased to levels as in 1960, Venezuela Central Bank figures show.
Denying the crisis won't work to argue Venezuela economy is doing well. What you say may be
true UNTIL 2012 or possibly until 2013, but times have changed. Poverty index has increased a
lot since then because everyone is reliant on government aids, and now the government is cutting
budgets everywhere to pay back foreign debt instead of applying default on such debt to avoid
cutting budgets. It isn't that difficult to see the obvious crisis.
Can you bring a updated table showing 2016 GDP decreasement? It is estimated that Venezuela's
economy fall
19
percent in 2016. Your graphic only show information until 2015.
"Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. "
Nor is it now. Again, this is right wing propaganda. More Venezuelans than ever are eating
despite shortages in some staples sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of
the smallish middle and smaller upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants
are open in the chic parts of Venezuela? Oh sure.
Look: I don't necessarily agree with every decision made by the chavistas and I agree that
mistakes were made in regards to foreign currency availability and even price controls and in
creating a more hostile environment to businesses but most of these actions were attempts to deal
with problems some of which do look like economic warfare to me. The market share concentration
in certain consumer products (corn flour) segments (see Empresas Polar) is ideal for economic
warfare.
Venezuela has long been a net importer of goods and that dependency has grown for 50 years,
long before Chavez. Control of dollars is why the Chavistas have been able to control inflation
on average better than their predecessors but yes it's still high. Venezuela is a small economy
which sells a lot of oil in dollars. Converting said revenues to bolivares creates inflation.
The country's GDP has been overly reliant on oil for long before Chavez. The steep decline in
oil prices is due to economic warfare against Russia mainly by Saudi/america and friends. Problems
water flow of Dams that produce power? Chavez' fault..nah
Venezuela has lots of structural problems which it long had but the only humanitarian crisis
is the one being created by the right wing protesters
You might be right, I don't follow South America very closely. But I know enough about empire
and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it. And based on what you have posted, it's not
like you are arguing from a position of knowledge.
There is no data for 2014, but in 2015 they were second, fifth in 2016, and last in 2017. Yet
in 2017 they still ranked higher than some European countries. In 2011 they were ranked 9th in
the world. My Venezuelan friends, like yourself, don't seem to like it when I mention these figures.
If you want to know a contributor to the decline, and if you are not afraid of information
that challenges your narrative, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or "The Shock Doctrine"
mentioned by psychohistorian.
Oil prices are down 50% on average compared to prices in the Chavez era, at least last I looked.
Therefore, Venezuelas GDP has contracted and the government has less money and fewer foreign reserves.
Last I read the oil sector was 1/3 of GDP. In boom years I recall it being circa 3/4 of GDP. This
is economic warfare, pure and simple.
Venezuela has suffered every time oil prices have fallen and that includes during the 80s when
the CIA/ZUSA used oil as a weapon to destroy the USSR via Saudi and the gulf monarchs.
PS: please see Yemen, Libya or Syria to see a real humanitarian crisis.
How does Venality make you Venezuelan?
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
If you really believe it will make things better, please put our fears to rest by listing the
anticipated improvements?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"
said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst
actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.
@Alaric "Nor is it now. More Venezuelans than ever are eating despite shortages in some staples
sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of the smallish middle and smaller
upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants are open in the chic parts of
Venezuela? Oh sure"
Yeah, you can see restaurants are open JUST in chic parts of Venezuela, while in your video
you mentioned, they only manage to cover ONLY some parts of Caracas, and only some stores. The
GOVERNMENT itself have admited the food shortage, that's why they need to distribute bags of food
street by street in every town of Venezuela, because reality is that you can't buy food in the
stores because there is none. I have myself doing lines for hours to buy bread that barely is
produced to supply the needs of some portion of the inhabitants doing the same line I'm doing;
some of them aren't even able to buy food because it runs out before the line is finished.
Again: You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because
you can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.
People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines,
kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has
also increased.
But I know enough about empire and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it
Yet, your own source state that Venezuela is indeed in crisis, but then I ask, why is such
crisis?
I do know that oil prices have decreased along with Venezuela oil production, that Venezuela
productivity has also decreased, that economic policies applied by Maduro and Hugo Chávez have
created a nocive business environment that both of them didn't knew how to replace to make a successful
transition towards communism. It isn't hard to understand. Even the most leftiest followers of
Chávez have admited the crisis in Venezuela, some of them arguing economic warfare, others arguing
poor management of the economy blaming Maduro for the crisis, but I think the last one is the
most certain to be happening in here. You don't even know the contributors of this crisis.
I've already posted some information you can check by yourself, you will realize better how
Venezuela's economy became this disaster.
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
Well, I know that Maduro will keep paying them money from bonds debt Venezuela acquired during
Hugo Chávez era, instead of going to default and protect the people, how other countries have
already done in history. It jus contradictory, defend Maduro and attack the fascist in Amerikkka
Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all,
instead of making it worse.
said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst
actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.
nf @ 23 said:"@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war
- it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business
about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with
Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest."
ger @ 13: "Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering
in another sovereign country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch
stealing natural resources? Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked
well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist
masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military.
A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. "
Worth repeating thanks. Both statements are relevant and truthful based on the empire's historical
facts.
@55
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
...
Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all,
instead of making it worse.
Posted by: Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:57:21 PM | 60
Spare me the rhetoric and drivel.
I posted my #55 because you were beginning to sound like a visionless (Neoliberal) twerp.
"Hope Maduro leave..." is a miserable substitute for a National Recovery plan. I asked you
a question and you're deliberately evading it.
Here it is again... Please put our fears to rest by listing the anticipated improvements? Until you answer, I'm winning the bet with myself that Enrique, would be utterly clueless when
asked to articulate a positive vision for Venezuela's post-Maduro future.
"How come other oil producers countries haven't suffered like Venezuela?"
Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Libya. They have all suffered from the curse of being rich in oil. The ones
that haven't suffered, like Scotland and Norway are peopled by people of European ancestry and
therefore off limits to the predatory USA , Saudi Arabia is suffering except for a wealthy elite
and is probably the model the USA has in mind for Venezuela and Russia is strong enough to resist.
To all you people who hold up the marvels of capitalism. How come any country experimenting with
socialism must be destroyed? The answer is really that capitalists want a free hand to pillage
any developing countries economy
Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from
a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges
in Brazil and Colombia.
Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes.
The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that.
The next thing ya know i will be reading that the butcher/tyrant maduro is murdering/starving his
own people thanks the Venezuelan regime... the usa is going to or already are sending money to
support the '''moderate rebels''' and on and on as the stomach turns.. i learned everything i
know from the western msm, and a few stooges hanging out in an internet they claimed was located
on the streets of caracas..
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald
Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that
supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free
ride.
It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have
to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes
brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.
Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about
Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:
"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie
becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly
difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the
effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth
just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda
campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the
tip of."
"... The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess. ..."
"... The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. ..."
"... Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change, nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'. ..."
"... because the US and world economy is so vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity. ..."
"... A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months. ..."
"... Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P over the precipice and precipitate a major crash. ..."
"... During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive factor in the decision making process. ..."
"... And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200 is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida and Europe from occupid Palestine. ..."
ProPeace@84 - "Well, not if the ships carrying those tomahawks are hit by Yakhonts first"
I agree, but you're assuming a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf would be launching the Tomahawks.
Block IV TLAMs have a range of between 1300 and 1800 km depending on the model. They could be
launched at Iran from the Mediterranean, Red Sea or Arabian Sea - well outside the 300 km range
of an anti-ship Yakhont, Onyx or BrahMos. I'm guessing the US Navy would take that into consideration
when they attack Iran.
"...And the Russians have also electronic countermeasures that caused that two US missiles
fired from the Western Med area towards Damascus to fall into the sea back in 2013, I believe.
No problem to protect Iran in the same way..."
Russia will be angry, but it will not start WW III with the US over Iran. They won't have to.
An attack on Iran will push China over the edge and THEY will be perfectly willing to start WW
III with the US in retaliation. Nobody talks much about that, but Iran is China's red line. They
will jump in as soon as we attack Iran, guaranteed. They know they're very close to the top of
the US Imaginary Enemies list and they'll be next.
Russia will voice its objections to the US/Israeli/GCC/NATO actions and indicate support for
Iran and China, but won't jump in at the start. They will just say that they are perfectly willing
to do so. The US will back down because we can't win either a conventional or nuclear war with
China and Russia at the same time. NATO will fold because their capitals are maybe six minutes
from Russia's RS-26 ICBMs. The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if
it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess.
Sadly, despite the consequences, the US will invent an excuse to attack Iran and do so. This
short interview in June with James Mattis, our Defense Secretary, illustrates why. The interview
was conducted in response to a request from a student (Teddy) at some random high school newspaper
in Washington state. Mattis responded on a whim and talked with them for a while, taking questions.
The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a
pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then
Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. Poor Teddy...
Close in defences at target sites seem the best defence against cruise missile attack - Pantsir
type of thing. Short range missiles and cannon. Any idea what Iran has in the way of short range
defence systems? Iran seems good on the electronics side of things which is what modern war is
all about.
Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change,
nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'.
His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny.
I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage. Tomahawks
are retard-missiles, flown in straight lines at low altitudes and at low speeds too. S-200 of
any vintage is an utter overkill for the Tomahawks.
Pantsirs, Buks and Tors are borderline overkill.
All that's really needed is a good Igla or Two and well alert crew. The Serbs were murdering
Toms like flies back in 1999 using the Vietnam-War era vintage SA-7s. Or a good old Shilka and
the radar turned on.
straight lines - near straight lines, they do turn when they need to dodge a mountain or similar.
Otherwise, not as much.
Or kill the GPS satellite and all the Tomahawks become as useless as c*** flavor lollipops.
These worthless Raytheon pieces of shite probably don't even have an inertial mode.
Thank you Paveway and others for your responses on the Iran military capabilities issue.
I disagree that Iran is either China's or Russia's red line. Logically she should be, but she
isn't. What I think has kept Uncle Scam from attacking Iran is Iran's own military strength. That
is not to say that Iran is in the same league; but because the US and world economy is so
vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country
that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity.
A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's
Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months.
Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P
over the precipice and precipitate a major crash.
During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran,
but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their
war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since
then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive
factor in the decision making process.
And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200
is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared
a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida
and Europe from occupid Palestine.
Nope! I'm not an Indian nor China apologist but primarily to show a new war brewing between
India and China and both with Russian S-400. Russia just recently signed agreement to sell S-400
to India. You should watch this vid first (three parts)
OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started
weighing in with their spin, I had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum
MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about what the U.S. thinks
about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.
Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s
and BUK clones, but nothing like Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated
(as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is of limited value. Iran relies
on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.
somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite
funny." His heart is in the right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant
of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this
defeatist garbage..." The war with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority
(or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first two weeks of an all-our
war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.
Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than
12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices
of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think big oil interests
in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?
"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack
Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play
at their war games..."
Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades
ago - we just haven't made it to Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all
tied up by now.
V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest
war in U.S. history: Afghanistan. We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war
is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.
"... All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China. ..."
The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to
lay claims on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with
Russia, Iran and China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule
All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in
the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia
is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China.
All the rest is carnival time and we stand in the midway in awe of the carnival barker
in the big hat who announces the freak show inside.
China has a hundred friends. We have two; Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Officials See US Move as Proof of 'Anti-Russian Hysteria' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister
Sergey Ryabkov
was among
a series of top Russian officials issuing warnings with regards to the latest round of US sanctions
against Russia, which overwhelmingly passed the House and seem to have strong support in the Senate.
With US-Russian relations already at a post-Cold War low, officials are warning the US sanctions
are putting them into "
uncharted waters ," pushing an already unstable relationship even further with additional sanctions.
Russian officials pinned this on "anti-Russia hysteria" within the US Congress, saying that they
believe President Trump, who was previously talking up a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia, had
effectively been "trapped" into going along with the sanctions.
The House bill that imposes the sanctions also heavily restricts the ability of the president
to unilaterally lift sanctions in the future. Indeed, that was the initial point of the bill, Democrats
wanted to prevent Trump from removing any sanctions. To get it through Congress, they added sanctions
on Iran and North Korea.
The Russia sanctions have not only riled Russia,
but the European Union as well, with fears the US sanctions will heavily hit European energy
companies that are reliant on Russia for supplies. EU officials have warned the US is likely to face
a swift retaliatory move by them if the sanctions go through.
Big victory for neocons. Defeat of Trump administration. Looks like the neocons have numerous ways
to make him cave. Huge set back for Putin as it undermine his policy of cooperating with West. It's
kind of hilarious that the neocon press corp pushing Clinton's BS #Russiagate narrative has put German
Poodles on the same side as Trump
Russia can't retaliate as the USA is way too strong and is spoiling for a fight. Also the USA export
to Russia is not that big. This is actually more a hit on Europeans, especially Germany.
Notable quotes:
"... Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense." ..."
"... "The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target," ..."
"... Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria," Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant chain McDonald's should be targeted in response. ..."
"... Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American firms at a disadvantage. ..."
"... It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including many local executives. ..."
"... "The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it is going to be for a long time." ..."
Apart from demanding a tough response, many in Russia declared dead any hope for improved relations
with Washington under a Trump administration, and there were suggestions that
European pique over the proposed measures created an opening for an anti-American alliance.
Dmitri S. Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin, noted that the proposed American
law was still a draft. The House and the Senate must reconcile their versions before submitting it
for President Trump's signature.
Any substantial response by Mr. Putin would require more study, Mr. Peskov said. Using one of
Mr. Trump's favorite adjectives in describing the law, he said, "In the meantime, it can be said
that the news is quite sad with regard to Russia-U.S. relations and prospects for their development."
He added that it was "no less depressing with regard to the international law and international commercial
relations."
Similar sentiments emerged from several European capitals. In Paris, the Foreign Ministry issued
a statement saying that the new sanctions, targeting Iran and North Korea as well as Russia, appeared
to contradict international law because of their global reach.
There is concern in Europe that the American sanctions could ripple through the energy market
because they target companies that contribute to the development, maintenance or modernization of
the pipelines exporting Russian energy.
That would most likely affect a hotly debated natural-gas pipeline project linking Russia with
Germany, called Nord Stream 2, which is owned by the Russian state oil giant, Gazprom, but in which
European firms hold financial stakes.
Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign relations committee in the Federation Council, the
upper house of the Russian legislature, said Moscow must respond even if it waited for the final
law.
The reaction should be "painful for the Americans," he wrote on Facebook. He also suggested a
temporary alliance with Europe.
Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would
bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense."
"The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of
prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target,"
Mr. Ryabkov said, according to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. Despite that, he added, Moscow
remained ready to cooperate on shared concerns, including fighting terrorism.
Last December, former President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and
the closing of two Russian diplomatic estates near Washington and New York. Mr. Putin, anticipating
better relations under a Trump administration, did not respond at the time. Many say they believe
the Russian leader's most likely first step will mirror those actions, and Moscow has been threatening
to take such measures for weeks.
The American bill, passed by a vote of 419 to 3 by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, bolsters
economic sanctions against Russia that were imposed after Moscow annexed Crimea and destabilized
Ukraine in 2014.
The measures reflect Congress's growing unease with Mr. Trump's relatively warm attitude toward
Russia despite repeated assertions from United States intelligence agencies that Moscow hacked the
American election. The law would require Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval before lifting
any sanctions -- a curb on executive authority that has prompted mixed signals from the White House
about whether Mr. Trump will sign any final version of the bill.
Russia, effectively ignoring the fact that its election meddling had prompted the measures, used
the push for tightened sanctions as further proof that deep forces in the American government were
continuing to thwart Mr. Trump's wish, expressed during the campaign, to improve ties with Moscow.
Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria,"
Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote
on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant
chain McDonald's should be targeted in response.
There has been concern in the American business community that the sanctions would harm their
interests. In previous rounds, Washington consulted with Europe on sanctions to ensure that everyone
was on the same page. Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in
Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American
firms at a disadvantage.
"If there is no coordination, everyone goes their own way," he said. "We don't like them," he
added, referring to the sanctions.
In response to Western sanctions in 2014, Moscow banned the import of many foods from the West,
including cheese and fish. Those counter-sanctions are often lauded in Russia as helping foster agricultural
development at home.
It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation
from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador
to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including
many local executives.
More than anything else, the proposed law left the impression that the American sanctions, whether
effective or not, would endure.
"There were sort of expectations that the sanctions would be gradually lifted because there would
be progress in the political settlements in Ukraine," said Oleg Khokhlov, a partner with Goltsblat
BLP, the Russian arm of Berwin Leighton Paisner, a London-based law firm.
"The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about
to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it
is going to be for a long time."
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"
By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST
"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so
it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned
naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities,
all bad. Bet on this one:
..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas
damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family
(or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will
carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.
That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as
a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the
evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he
delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties
a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars
and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against
indictment, which is not guaranteed.
It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking
the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario
comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third
party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the
deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.
If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his
siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.
If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political
consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer,
and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will
do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the
Russian collusion investigation
The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that
happens
"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"
By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT
"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.
...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between
Hillary Clinton and Russia...
...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according
to the Post."...
"... No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does not. ..."
"... Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda. ..."
"... Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests. ..."
"... President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control of his Administration. ..."
This week's expected House vote to add more sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a prime
example of how little thought goes into US foreign policy. Sanctions have become kind of an automatic
action the US government takes when it simply doesn't know what else to do.
No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington
is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington
tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable
as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the
elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does
not.
Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated
Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want
to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda.
Why, just weeks after the White House affirmed that Iran is abiding by its obligations under the
nuclear treaty, does Congress pass additional sanctions anyway? Washington blames Iran for "destabilizing"
Syria and Iraq by helping them fight ISIS and al-Qaeda. Does this make any sense at all?
When is the last time Iran committed a terrorist act on our soil? It hasn't. Yet we learned from
the declassified 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 report that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved
in the 2001 attacks against Washington and New York.
Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria
for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because
sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests.
Why is Congress poised to add yet more sanctions on North Korea? Do they want the North Korean
people to suffer more than they are already suffering? North Korea's GDP is half that of Vermont
– the US state with the lowest GDP! Does anyone believe they are about to invade us? There is much
talk about North Korea's ballistic missile program, but little talk about 30,000 US troops and weapons
on North Korea's border. For Washington, it's never a threat if we do it to the other guy.
Here's an alternative to doing the same thing over and over: Let's take US troops out of North
Korea after 70 years. The new South Korean president has proposed military talks with North Korea
to try and reduce tensions. We should get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. If
Iran and Russia want to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda at the invitation of their ally, Syria, why stand
in the way? We can't run the world. We are out of money.
President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said
on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control
of his Administration.
Trump vetoing it would create yet another bubble of media and political establishment noise
against him. That might even be useful if he needs a distraction from something else.
Meanwhile, what's happening with Sessions? I can understand Trump being annoyed with him for
recusing himself from the Russia nonsense and allowing a special prosecutor to be set up, when
arguably it would have been better to just openly laugh at the allegations from the beginning.
Would there have been enough Republican traitors to get him impeached for doing so? But losing
Sessions seems likely to seriously piss off another remaining chunk of his core support, unless
he can find someone else who can satisfy the base and get past Congress, which seems unlikely.
"... The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring. ..."
"... The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country, as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European sanctions took hold. ..."
"... Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports. ..."
"... A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship Russian natural gas across the Baltic. ..."
Those 2014 U.S. sanctions were paired with related measures imposed by the European Union,
which placed restrictions on business with Russia's financial, defense and energy sectors.
Today, Russia's economy is still feeling the harsh impact of those measures, which coincided
with a crash in global oil prices that cut deeply into revenues from the country's main
export.
The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017
Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the
ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring.
The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country,
as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to
dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European
sanctions took hold.
Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American
business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports.
Only six U.S states count Russia as a significant market for goods and services. Washington,
the most reliant, sells roughly 1 percent of its total exports to Russia, consisting mostly of
machinery and farm products. That's half the level before the 2014 sanctions took effect.
European nations, which export greater volumes to Russia than the U.S., imposed their own
set of sanctions response to the Crimean annexation.
But some European countries that rely more heavily on Russia as a trade partner are eyeing
the latest U.S. sanctions warily.
A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would
include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would
likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship
Russian natural gas across the Baltic.
"... Somewhat OT, but since many think Putin is part of Russia's Deep State, then perhaps we should look in on how he interacts with kids--yes, children. ..."
"... Putin casts a shadow over many men, often without really trying; rare, but not unique. Some are described as Teflon, implying they're slippery, nothing sticks, bullets glance-off. Contrastingly, Putin seems to absorb everything and feeds on it, making him stronger and resilient simultaneously, like the judo master he is. ..."
"... In one question the president vid, a student asked the reason Putin didn't use an umbrella in an outside ceremony, during a pouring down rain; he replied; "I'm not made of sugar, I won't melt." ..."
"... Re: Putin, I've seen plenty of Putin footage, and never once seen him dodge or deflect a question - it's obvious he has a firm mental grasp on almost all issues from technology, to war, to social issues, to the political mechanics of foreign states...just an incredibly broad spectrum of understanding, always displaying respect to history. What's not to admire?? The guy is more statesman than politician, hence his domestic popularity. ..."
Somewhat OT, but since many think Putin is part of Russia's Deep State, then perhaps we should
look in on how he interacts with kids--yes, children. Along with his annual Direct Line Q&A where
he takes questions from all over Russia and from around the world, he also has an annual meet
with children at one of the many special centers Russia has dedicated to them in education, sport,
music, and art, where he takes their questions, and we often learn new things about the rather
remarkable Russian President. This year, he's at the Sirius Educational Centre for Talented Children
in Sochi. It's quite an interesting conversation and provides some comic relief.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55114
Putin casts a shadow over many men, often without really trying; rare, but not unique. Some
are described as Teflon, implying they're slippery, nothing sticks, bullets glance-off. Contrastingly,
Putin seems to absorb everything and feeds on it, making him stronger and resilient simultaneously,
like the judo master he is.
It's easy to understand why Russians have the high degree of confidence
they share in Putin, something I think even the opposition would concede.
A short video of Putin I run onto when researching him and current Russia some time ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ordGkDQos
Touches the kid on the shoulder, more like a father than an elite, and stands beside him for the
national anthem. Perhaps I read it the wrong way, but gives some insight into Putin.
@34, 36, 40 Re: Putin, I've seen plenty of Putin footage, and never once seen him dodge or deflect a question
- it's obvious he has a firm mental grasp on almost all issues from technology, to war, to social
issues, to the political mechanics of foreign states...just an incredibly broad spectrum of understanding,
always displaying respect to history. What's not to admire?? The guy is more statesman than politician,
hence his domestic popularity.
All that is out there, known to the west...ready to be discovered by all who are curious enough.
Alas, the acute attention deficit issues of the common westerner coupled with the dumbing down
of successive generations and the destruction of critical thought make Putin somehow easy propaganda
fodder.
I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners
on a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.
MadMax2 | Jul 22, 2017 6:54:34 AM | 46
I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners on
a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.
Mercy me, ain't it so?
Even over at Ian's (Welsh), he has to start every post about Russia's Putin with how evil he is;
I've called him out on that crap; to no avail.
But, I do think the world is waking up to the vile Usaian policies across the planet. One can
only hope, yes?
Just to be clear; I have no illusions regarding Pres. Putin; however; his reality based leadership
is a wake up call to the planet.
It's also infinitely clear, Russia is NOT the aggresor in our present reality; but rather it's
the U.S.A.!
Putin's cool hand Luke, is probably the only reason the nukes are not flying...
Yet...
Yes, I meant to add in my earlier comment that there is no shortage of novels in English featuring
the assassination of western leaders, either – so it's not all just Putin. But I stand by the
remainder of my assessment.
"I just find it interesting how the number of spy thrillers involving Putin's assassination
has been growing since 2015 "
Which means – they began writing somewhere in 2013-14, to get published in 2015.
As to the question: " why are thriller writers obsessed with killing Putin (or his fictional
stand-in) now?". Sublimation. Acto of magic(k) (see my original article). Plus pretty much everything
that Mark said.
Increasing desperation I would say reminiscent of Nazi's increasing hopes for wunderweapons to
stop the USSR. If only we could kill Putin all of our problems would be over .
Lets not forget that Putin did not gain his position by his force of personality and/or ruthlessness.
He was picked by a group of Russian patriots, the military, and elements of the Orthodox church
who nurtured and supported him. Putin made the personal sacrifices and performed his duty for
his country.
He certainly will be a tough act to follow but I think it would be a mistake to try to find
another Putin. Russia is no longer a ravaged country on the verge of figurative and actual disintegration.
The next leader may be more of a visionary and a spiritual force to provide more direction and
purpose to a population that survived hell and now looking for a greater good. I do hope so.
Yes, and also a boom in ALT-History fiction genre.
I personally disapprove of all this what-if-ism as I don't think it does the human race any good
to speculate on what might have been.
Also, most of the ALT-History fiction is just revanchists living out their fantasies that, e.g.,
the South won the Civil War; or the Nazis won WWII; or the Japanese Empire still exists (a favorite
of the anime crowd too).
And more importantly, alt-history writers are the most dreadful hacks in the business. Turtledove,
Stirling, Gingrich (to name but a few) – they make fantasy writers look inspired.
However, Philip K. Dick was supposedly a leftist and he produced the crock of shit "The High Tower";
mind you, other novels of his are creeptastic: the scenes of "Perky Pat" haunt me like Dumas..
"Twenty Years After " [shudder x 3].
"... It must be borne in mind that even as Russia is wrestling with the problem of the Putin succession, which will be like juggling an unexploded bomb even in the absence of distractions, the west will be pulling out all the stops to get a neoliberal into the power position. Its window is closing even now, and if it lets another Putinesque leader assume power without a fight, it will likely be too late by the time he or she has completed his/her first term. et Al , July 21, 2017 at 3:07 am I think that the other most important strand is to have a good and deep team well in place in all aspects of government and elsewhere that sing from the same song sheet, i.e. their end goals and principles are very similar, but is fully open to constructive criticism and dialogue . This exists already but how deep and wide it is the question. I also fully agree with likebez that the USA's death spasms do pose quite a risk to Russia but we have seen so far its results have been limited ..."
"... Some, unfortunately see this as a sign of weakness, but getting in to a fight with someone larger, uglier and follows no rules is certainly not a good thing to do. It is very much a Judo (and a bit of Kung Fu) strategy of using your opponents greater weight against itself. It works in all fields from economic & political to the media. Russia hasn't created western divisions and lunacy, but it does take advantage of it by feeding it back in to the western politico-economic & media loop much as guitarists do. ..."
"... Western targeted fury towards Sputnik & RT is little more than How dare you criticize us with our own news? . Those commentators that go on the media to rant and rail do little but discredit themselves. The good news is that every mention of RT & Sputnik is free PR! The only time I look at either is when someone in the west squeals about them because I want to see what the drama is all about. ..."
"... The fact that the USA has to make such overt and aggressive military threats is the clearest proof that its soft power has rapidly diminished. ..."
"... In the last few years that he was leader of the government, before the coup, Gorbachov started to behave unilaterally and erratically. He would negotiate and cut deals on the global scale, without any input, not just from the government, but even the Central Committee of the Party. In essence, he went rogue. He did whatever he pleased, and nobody was able to stop him or to belay his disastrous decisions. This sort of thing could happen again, if Russians are not careful. There must be checks and balances on any political leader, even the most trusted. ..."
"... As for China and Russia being dependent on Western technology, not so, as amply discussed in this blog. ..."
"... Much of the appearance of support for the Western empire in Russia's near-aboard will evaporate upon realization that the good ship Empire is taking on water and the rats are in the water looking for a new ship to scramble on board. ..."
Very well said. It must be borne in mind that even as Russia is wrestling with the problem of
the Putin succession, which will be like juggling an unexploded bomb even in the absence of
distractions, the west will be pulling out all the stops to get a neoliberal into the power
position.
Its window is closing even now, and if it lets another Putinesque leader assume
power without a fight, it will likely be too late by the time he or she has completed his/her
first term.
I think that the other most important strand is to have a good and deep team well in place in
all aspects of government and elsewhere that sing from the same song sheet, i.e. their end
goals and principles are very similar, but is fully open to constructive criticism and
dialogue . This exists already but how deep and wide it is the question.
I also fully agree with likebez that the USA's death spasms do pose quite a risk to Russia
but we have seen so far its results have been limited, in part due to the cool hand of Putin
and the government by ignoring most provocations and selectively responding where
necessary.
Some, unfortunately see this as a sign of weakness, but getting in to a fight with someone
larger, uglier and follows no rules is certainly not a good thing to do. It is very much a
Judo (and a bit of Kung Fu) strategy of using your opponents greater weight against itself.
It works in all fields from economic & political to the media. Russia hasn't created
western divisions and lunacy, but it does take advantage of it by feeding it back in to the
western politico-economic & media loop much as guitarists do.
Western targeted fury towards Sputnik & RT is little more than How dare you
criticize us with our own news? . Those commentators that go on the media to rant and
rail do little but discredit themselves. The good news is that every mention of RT &
Sputnik is free PR! The only time I look at either is when someone in the west squeals about
them because I want to see what the drama is all about.
The fact that the USA has to make such overt and aggressive military threats is the
clearest proof that its soft power has rapidly diminished. The thing is, they cannot
just make threats and not deliver (small countries don't count) without loosing credibility
either, much like the boy who cried Wolf! There are plenty of US experts who have publicly
had kittens on US news channels over Trump's threat's to North Korea, so we see already that
there are clear and open divisions. And we've seen him row back many of his purported plans
too. Sure, he's cast off some of O-Bombers caution, for example approving a large arms
package to Taiwan, but that's a long way from his early goals. He goes for the low hanging
fruit, speaking of which, is this a sign of more US protectionism?
A secretive U.S. government panel has objected to at least nine acquisitions of U.S.
companies by foreign buyers so far this year, people familiar with the matter said, a
historically high number that bodes poorly for China's overseas buying spree.
The objections indicate that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS), which reviews acquisitions by foreign entities for potential national security
risks, is becoming more risk-averse under U.S. President Donald Trump.
It's too early to tell, but if the US and others start using 'national security' reasons
more widely and casually to block buys, then they'll be undermining the WTO, a system they
themselves designed.
I agree with likbez that the Russian Presidency has too much power as an individual; and that
this creates the danger of another Gorbachov.
In the last few years that he was leader of the
government, before the coup, Gorbachov started
to behave unilaterally and erratically. He would negotiate and cut deals on the global scale,
without any input, not just from the government, but even the Central Committee of the
Party.
In essence, he went rogue. He did whatever he pleased, and nobody was able to stop him or to
belay his disastrous decisions.
This sort of thing could happen again, if Russians are not careful.
There must be checks and balances on any political leader, even the most trusted.
Irreversible and accelerating growth in debt, an infrastructure approaching a tipping
point and, as alluded above, a population increasingly unfit to live in a civilized world are
sufficient to ensure a relatively near-term societal failure. As for China and Russia being
dependent on Western technology, not so, as amply discussed in this blog.
Much of the appearance of support for the Western empire in Russia's near-aboard will
evaporate upon realization that the good ship Empire is taking on water and the rats are in
the water looking for a new ship to scramble on board. All the while, the semi-conscious
passengers are assured by smooth talking cruise directors that all is well and there is a
limbo contest on the Fiesta deck.
"... Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved. ..."
"... And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying. ..."
"... There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may. ..."
"... Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die. ..."
"... For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough. ..."
"... That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something". ..."
Fracking Around with the Russians What will those rascals in Moscow do next?
July 18, 2017
1,400 Words
112 Comments
It has been another week full of news about Russia. Americans might be surprised to learn that
nearly every aspect of their lives has been somehow impacted by the insidious covert activity of
a former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy. One of the latest claims
is that Moscow has been
covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking
technologies. The allegations, which have
recently surfaced in Congress , conceded that the Russians allegedly moved forward with their
strategy to damage America's energy independence without leaving behind "a paper trail," thus there
appears to actually be little or no supporting evidence for what is little more than a series of
claims, which have been denied by the groups in question, including the highly respectable Sierra
Club. Moscow has not commented.
To be sure, there is a certain logic inherent in assertions that Russia might be behind such a
development as Moscow's economy runs on energy exports and high prices are good for it. Consequently,
it ought not surprise anyone that Russia would seek to discredit competitive technologies that work
to increase the supply of energy and thereby cause prices to fall. It's simple math, but is it true
given the fact that environmental groups are widely popular due to the appeal of the product they
are promoting and have their own reliable sources of income?
Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of
targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in
collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power.
And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not,
which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might
be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved.
And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow
is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely
patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no
matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying.
There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless
stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone
that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative
to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed
from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente
mindset come what may.
I was particularly bemused by the
comment by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of
20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word
of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in the recent election. In an interview
Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual
who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."
Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan
is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over
Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to
create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to
dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided
by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald
Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.
And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports
regarding the contacts of Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents
while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary.
As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something
having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more
about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like
a quid pro quo actually took place, the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically
inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily naivete on my part nor a denial
that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing
and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with
adversaries and very often even with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking
to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance its own interests.
Assuming even the
worst case scenario that the media has been promoting, the Trump Tower meeting appears to have
involved three political aspirants who were a bit on the novice side and a Russian lawyer and lobbyist
who might have been intelligence cut-outs. What did happen anyway? Apart from not reporting the encounter
by the three apparent victims of the planned corruption of America's democratic process, nothing
apparently happened except that the event itself has now given the esteemed Senator Charles Schumer
and the Honorable Adam Schiff something new to mouth off about. Oh, and it keeps Rachel Maddow and
Stephen Colbert, who is celebrating Russia Week on his program, employed.
Politics is a dirty business, based on power and money in these United States. Presumably back
in mid-June there was enough salacious information floating around emanating from both parties to
provide employment for plenty of individuals who were prepared to do whatever it would take to dig
up something damaging up from any source available, including foreigners. That game was played by
both sides and anyone who does not think that is so is avoiding the hard edge of the pervasive political
corruption that greases the wheels in the United States.
So maybe Russia is funding some environmental groups or maybe not. And if it is, so what? I would
welcome anyone who challenges fracking. And so what if a cluster of political tyros met with a couple
of Russians who may or may not have been sent by Putin. Clearly, nothing came of it and meeting with
a Russian and talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country.
Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence.
All of which leads one to question why the U.S. media insist on holding the Russian government and
its intelligence services to a higher standard than they do other countries like Israel, which persistently
spy on the U.S. and regularly interfere in our political process? And what about our own government
and its multitude of spy agencies? Are we always the guys in the white hats? Let's look at the actual
record. CIA has done far worse far more consistently in collecting information through misdirection,
influencing overseas elections and even changing regimes than have the Russians. And let's not forget
the U.S. military's record on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and currently Syria. We are very good at that
"regime change" sort of thing even though the results frequently turn out badly because no one in
Washington seems to know what to do on day 2 after the invasion has ended with yet another "victory"
and another foreign government has been consigned to the garbage heap.
← Who Is the Real Enemy?
Category: Economics ,
Foreign Policy Tags:
American Media ,
CIA ,
Environmentalism ,
Fracking ,
John Brennan ,
Russia ,
Scott Ritter
Speaking of regime change, wasn't it Victoria Nuland and George Soros' enabling of Kiev coup
that obliged the US installed puppet gov't. of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election at the
behest to DNC to assist Hillary?
The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference
Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look
like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.
Also in this whole Russia-fracking gate, will no one in the media mention the vanglorious and
incompetent sleuth, John Podesta's Machiavellian (for dummies) support for groups putting pressure
on the Catholic Church ?
" A former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy."
Recent studies indicate that the Russian Economy is now larger than that of Germany. Current Western
sanctions, far from harming the Russian economy, have been beneficial in supporting import substitution
and diversification.
It is clear Giraldi doesn't read the work of his fellow columnist, Anatoly Karlin. Giraldi is
still stuck in 1995. Time you caught up on your homework, Philip.
Mr. giraldi should ask can Italy or Spain afford or make what Russia can ,can France or Germany?
Hence Mr. Giraldi views of what Russian economy is, are not correct.
" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."
There are secret laws, so one can no longer say even that with certainty. These are the same
laws that make it illegal to know or merely meet a Russian.
West needs evil white people. No civilization can function without some agreed on enemy. Russia
has played this role on and off for centuries. Today there is simply no other viable candidate
– with the multi-cultural and religous taboos, and the need for the enemy to be credible and a
bit remote. So Russia it is and probably will be for a long time, any consequences be damned.
Russia dislike also feeds well into the surviving atavistic hatreds among key groups in the
West: grandkids of pogroms, endless emigres with their bitter family memories and a need to fit
in, the deep seated thirst for revenge among Germans now that they are again allowed to sit at
the Western table, the French and Anglo-Saxon egomania and a need to distract from their own history.
And of course the Poles, they would line up to attack Russia if Al Queda would lead it. One cannot
fight emotions.
The question is whether it is wise. It is close to impossible to maintain permanent hostility
with Russia, so something has to give. A climb-down is very unlikely – too many powerful people
are freshly invested in the struggle against 'evil Russkies'. The two other alternatives are worse:
if Russia gets destroyed, West won't last long – the Russia's hinterland will get overrun by southern
and eastern masses and West will be basically done for. And destroying both Russia and West in
a war needs no analysis.
Could we possibly perish because Western elites were emotionally invested in Clintons getting
back in the White House and the jobs-perks that would come with it? Or because some nerd named
Podesta messed up his email passwords? Well, why not, after all Franz Ferdinand's driver made
a bad turn and
@Verymuchalive This analysis comes from the World Economic Forum. Russia's economy is slightly
bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy. It is far smaller than that of Germany and
is dwarfed by the US.
@Philip Giraldi Mr. Giraldi, that's nominal GDP. Meaningless. Might as well cite the number
of bubble gum chewers as an indicator.
On a list of countries by projected 2017 GDP (PPP), Russia places 6th, in a virtual dead heat
with Germany.
On that basis, China is ahead of even the EU, with the US 2nd on a national basis, and a distant
3rd on an economic "block" basis. It is some $4T behind China, which sounds about right.
@Philip Giraldi The best way to compare economies is by using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity).
It is not perfect, but it adjusts for currency fluctuation. By that measure, using CIA Worldbook
for 2016, Russia is #6 economy in the world, slightly smaller than Germany. Spain is #16 and about
half the size of Russia's economy in real terms.
The reason it is absolutely essential to adjust for currecy conversion is that otherwise you
get crazy variations when e.g. dollar goes up by 30% against the euro. Or in Russia's case ruble
is down almost 50% against the dollar. Those are artificial numbers – showing size in 'dollars'
that are nor used in those economies is like showing US economy's performance in pesos. PPP adjusts
for purchasing power.
Russia's economy is about the size of Germany, with almost twice the population. It is also
one of 4-5 economies that can manufacture everything from jet planes and space rockets, to nuclear
power plants and weapons. It has about 1/5 of world's total physical resources and is self-sufficient
in food. It is the largest lightly populated space in the world. There are different ways we can
be wrong about the realities around us, trying to have it both ways and to stay within some allowed
boundaries is one of them.
@The Alarmist As I've said many times before, one day it will be a crime, like it is in much
of Europe already, to even question the numbers of the Holocaust, with SEVERE punishments maybe
even death!
The Western Elites, you know who I mean, hate Putin for reestablishing and/or fostering the
Christian Orthodox church in the country. 'They' just hate that!
"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the
evidence".
Well, there almost certainly isn't any evidence. But that doesn't really matter. Regardless,
the USA DOES NOT GET to "punish" Russia. There is a little legal concept called "sovereignty"
that seems to have slipped the mind of Americans. Nations do not – cannot "punish" one another
these days. Until, perhaps, 1939, one nation could invade another and conquer it – but today that
is illegal under international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter. Slighter acts
of war, such as sanctions, are also strictly forbidden.
Now, as we all know, the US government – like its li'l bitty buddy the Israeli government –
is in the habit of completely ignoring all laws, and doing whatever it likes. But trampling the
law underfoot is not a wise thing to do – one day, you yourself might need it.
Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy
Phil, this is dubious at best. The same as 18 trillion dollars US economy, 70% of which is
FIRE, that is involved mostly in financial transactions. Even CIA's World Fact Book gives it (for
2015) as 3.8 trillion. At 2017 it is stated at 3.9 trillion which is about the size of Germany's.
Using data of some supposedly "independent" (and globalist in nature) Swiss outlet on Russia is
a dubious task. Big Mac Dollar was introduced for a reason.
Here is dynamics of Russia's GDP from International Monetary Fund (also globalist, but at least
consistent).
I omit here the usage of "absolute" dollars in measuring GDP–it really comes down to introducing
not just Big Mac but F-35 dollars. When Spain will be able to produce what Russia produces, then
maybe.
2+ million Bolsheviks have immigrated to Israel from Russia since the Gravy-train collapsed
in 1991, absconding with not a few billion dollars and a deep resentment . Various careerist took
their policies and plans with them as well.
@Erebus Western economic views were "monetarised" to the point of a complete absurd at the
expense of real, that is manufacturing (productive) economy. This is the view which "equates"
manufacturing of jet aircraft or space station with the balance sheet of some insurance company
or some bank, both of which produce only services, much of them of a virtual and dubious nature.
Sadly, "making money" long ago substituted "making things" and then making money based on that.
The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing
almost to the point of no return. In the end, nothing short of a miraculous victory of Donald
Trump is a greatest testimony to a complete bankruptcy of dominant monetarist economic views.
He emphasized high paying manufacturing jobs–he won.
@Beckow As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's "Big Mac Index":
THE Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether
currencies are at their "correct" level. It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity
(PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would
equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in
any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2017 was
$5.30; in China it was only $2.92 at market exchange rates. So the "raw" Big Mac index says
that the yuan was undervalued by 45% at that time.
For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:
Amongst the conclusions: "In fact, (the Russian economy) is the most self-sufficient and diversified economy in the
world." Thank God for sanctions. Before that it was just "a gas station with nukes".
As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's
Economist (the magazine) and real economy in the same sentence is a bad joke. Economist as
"the ultimate arbiter" is altogether–beyond redemption.
For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:
Russian economy in general is undervalued several times–that is why for the last 20+ years
virtually nobody in Western "analytical" organizations can explain what just hit them.
Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would
look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.
The USA gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela, not the ME.
BTW, in a way, the Israelis do own most of the ME oil, thru their Wall Street confederates
in control of the commodity market where the oil is sold. Sold back and forth around 15 times
before it reaches the refinery, meaning the US customer is getting screwed BIG TIME by our Israeli
ally.
@Andrei Martyanov I think you failed to appreciate the "tongue in cheek" quality of my remark.
In your rather blind haste to defend Russia, which I can well understand, you seem to miss the
fact that I am essentially on your side.
As to being "several times" times undervalued, this is not at all inconsistent with the 57%
undervaluation shown by the Big Mac index, which means that the ruble's "true" value is nearly
2.5 times its quoted value.
@The Alarmist Come again! Secret laws? You mean the ones Senator Caligula arranges to have
carved in Esperanto on stone blocks exhibited once a week on the top of a 50 foot scaffold? You
are talking about laws in the everyday dictionary or constitutionsl sense and not just some note
from tbe White House?
The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing
almost to the point of no return.
Well, it had to if it was going to go for Dollar-based Hegemony. It apparently felt that it
had to, and so it did.
Triffin's Dilemma states that if a single nation is the issuer of the world's reserve currency,
then that nation had to run increasingly massive trade deficits to fund the world's liquidity.
What better way to do that than to encourage their industry (via tax incentives) to move their
industry off-shore? The captains of American industry jumped at the gift and made a LOT
of money feeding China's development.
What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They
promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a
massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out
of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players,
but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now
Chinese. All state owned.
When they hand that card back in, it'll be at, or just over its limit, and overseas USM personnel
will be hitch-hiking rides back to the US.
@for-the-record My point was not in "defending Russia"–my reasons are much deeper than any
mere "defense". I may have missed your sarcasm on Economist, but using Ruble (or any currency
in general) as an economic indicator is a tricky business. Structure of GDP and a number of enclosed
technological cycles are among most important, in fact–defining, factors.
It is quite certain that rich American environmentalists have funded speciously connected Aboriginal
litigants to conduct lawfate against the potentially gigantic Galilee Basin ptoject in Queensland
to export coal to India.
What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They
promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure,
a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population
out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign
players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world
are now Chinese. All state owned.
Very true. But using term "massive industrial base" may give an aneurysm to some Wall Street
economic "analysts" or create a cognitive dissonance of such a scale that will require psychiatric
intervention.
@Andrei Martyanov Using rubles at the "official" exchange rate is of course meaningless; however,
using a purchasing-power-parity adjusted exchange rate (which is what the Big Mac index is, in
a certain sense) provides a very useful means for comparing levels of outputs in different countries,
do you not agree?
@Andrei Martyanov This is not the first time Phil compared Russia to Spain or Italy. It is
widespread dillusion and meme I read often. I find it in line general American policy to repeat
lies and insinuations non stop be it WW2 history, Ukraine, Russian GDP,elections and so forth
until it is accepted as sort of truth. Even Phil being non mainstream still repeats this nonsense
comparing Russia to Spain.
Both as a veteran and as a former cold warrior, I must say that I feel betrayed by the myopia,
historical ignorance, incompetence, hubris, recklessness, sheer nuttiness of the Washington establishment's
conduct towards Russia over the past 20 years – bipartisan insanity. When one thinks it can't
get worse, it gets worse; or as the circa 70s Soviet saying went, things are worse today than
yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
Economic numbers are relevant but ultimately beside the point when calculating one's national
interest in the context of the world's major political and nuclear powers and history's most blood
soaked century.
Kudos to people like Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and Patrick Buchanan who demonstrate regularly
that at least some who were there as witnesses of what was retain the good judgment to recognize
the road the damn DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good
reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do.
@Andrei Martyanov This was part of the argument I was trying to expose. The Russian economy
is grossly undervalued and many people who should know better like Philip Giraldi tend to grossly
underestimate its size, range and capabilities.
By contrast, the American economy is grossly overvalued and its capabilities grossly overestimated.
You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing. Purely
as an advertising vehicle, which is all it is, Facebook might be worth a couple of hundred million
dollars. But no more.
And the there's Twitter. Never made a profit in its 11 years. $2 billion accumulative deficits.
Book worth $11 billion. You couldn't make it up.
@RobinG For a guy that claims to 'only be interested in the facts' this 'great' investigative
reporter sure likes to serve up a crock of BS for his main course. While trying to make a case
that the DNC was solely responsible for installing Yanukovych's replacement, the video clip shows
Nuland making a phone call to somebody (?) announcing that her choice was Vitali Klitschko oops,
how did Victor Poroshenko end up running the show, and not Klitschko? Looks like this sinister
Soros plot unraveled here a wee bit. Also, while trying to besmearch the good name of John McCain,
he's shown on a stage with a supposed notorious 'anti-Semite'. But look, who's that third person
on the stage with both McCain and Tyahnibok? Why it's Arseni Yatseniuk, a Ukrainian-Jew, of all
people! What's this Ukrainian Jew doing on stage with this great anti-Semite? Maybe he's an anti-Semite
too??
@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and others we are really on the same side on this – no matter how
one values the Russian economy it is still tiny compared to the US and Western Europe. My point
is that it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat to everyone else – it doesn't have the economic
mojo to take on the world. So let's stop picking on
Russia and calling it a threat. Likewise my comment about punishing Russia – if indeed Russia
has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order. But we should
be demanding evidence relating to all the allegations and even then when I am referring to punishment
I am thinking in terms of sanctions and other actions, not any expansion of NATO or anything that
actually threatens Russian security.
@Sergey Krieger Those are mantras. In one sense I understand that, even among people who,
otherwise, would be considered "realists". It is akin to John Mearsheimer repeating non-stop his
favorite mantra of Russian Armed Forces being "a mediocre army". It will take some time for a
reality to sink in.
if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in
order.
Agree, as strange it may sound from the man of my background. The United Sates is a sovereign
nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I
doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections. I make this conclusion purely on assessing
the overall (much improved since mid-2000s) intellectual level of people who run Russian institutions
which potentially may have interfered. I don't think those people are that stupid as to endanger
US-Russian relations which are crucial for global stability, or whatever is left of it anyway.
Back to "no evidence" again! "Let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong".
OK. How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
Putin doesn't deny it! By the way, from what I gather, talking with representatives of a foreign
power with a view to obtaining an advantage is a federal crime and it matters not one whit whether
any advantage was actually obtained or even that the "representatives" were faking. In the particular
case, DNC "dirt" actually did pop up on the internet. Moreover, one of the lawyer's clients was
being prosecuted for money laundering. Trump removed the federal prosecutor and the company was
suddenly offered a sweet settlement deal without a guilty plea. That's a long way from "ipso facto"!
You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing.
Atrocious, isn't it? Boeing–a crown jewel of American (and global aerospace) industry and engineering
genius and a FB. One produces technological marvels with global demand, another produces absolutely
nothing, sadly, also with a global demand.
BTW, as I type this–Russia held today opening of 2017 MAKS aerospace exhibition–a real economy
on display. There is only other nation in the world which can on her own produce anything comparable–and
that is the US.
Moral Equivalence? Heck no. America is the indispensable and exceptional nation.
We can commit the same sins in even greater number and magnitude than other nations yet no
one can hold us accountable while we hold others accountable for identical actions.
I recently wrote a very intelligent and cogent comment on a right-wing website which suggested
that viewing America as if we were indispensable and exceptional, despite the plain fact that
Trump was elected precisely because we aren't either of those things and his job was to find flaws
and fix them, would tend to placate Americans such that we don't get to work fixing those flaws.
Guess what, that post was deleted by moderators within seconds.
Swell-headedness and self importance seems very deeply ingrained in Americans.
Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics.
Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow
to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk
Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die.
For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well
being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global
Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough.
That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their
fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough
to allow them to "think of something".
They have to stop the Silk Road from coming somehow, or American power will recede to the continent,
leaving them to boss Canada and Mexico around. With Russia out of the way, China's a pushover.
The two together can't be overcome. It really is as simple as that.
and compare that to a Russian lawyer meeting with Trump surrogates with potential dirt on Clinton,
the sheer hypocrisy is enough to benumb the mind and soul, it's so beyond egregious.
what's going on is the unipolar world of Zio-NATO demanding fealty from every last bastion
of the dying multilateral international community, until it's zio-interests reign the entire length
and breath of the planet, without a shred of resistance or dissent.
Sort of like the way they demanded that no one give Edward Snowden safe haven. And almost all
nations kowtowed. They will not rest until their unipolar domination extends to every last bastion
of human freedom from their $atanic power.
The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything
at her disposal
that's laughable.
the institutions of the US were murdered on 9/11, along with all those people in the planes
and towers. We are no longer a people or a nation with a legal constitution, but rather are an
occupied people with a quisling government serving Israel's interests, day and night. We're about
as sovereign as Palestine, but at least they have the dignity of seeing their occupation for what
it is, whereas we play pretend, and act like we're still sovereign, even as our citizens are assassinated
if they become inconvenient to the regime in Tel Aviv that runs things here.
if we're going to be occupied by a hostile regime that hates us and wants to use us as cannon
fodder to enslave Russia and everyone else, then we ought at least be allowed the dignity of knowing
it and saying it.
How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
you must be from the Kagan family of war pigs
Victoria Nuland (Nudelman), and her corpulent husband Robert Kagan
the waddling blob of lard Frederick Kagan and his war sow wife Kimberly Kagan
(This may be one of the primary reasons for the ongoing demonization of Russia: One of zionism's
foremost goals was the in-gathering of the diaspora. In the past zionists have destabilised states
where Jews dwelt -- peacefully and securely -- in order to frighten Jews into leaving. If the Jews
who left Russia in the 1980s are now returning, or are not integrating successfully in Israel,
then similar tactics will likely be deployed.)
Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel According to Rozovsky, the post- 2000 immigrants, especially
those who arrived following the failed
May 10, 2017 Some 17 per cent of the Jewish immigrants who came to Israel from the former Soviet
Union in the early 1990s have since left, official data by
Sep 1, 2016 "The majority of native-born Israelis think Russian Israelis are not Jews," said
Svetlova. . were forced to give up their citizenship and pension upon leaving.
@Rurik I may agree with you on some points but those agreements are not bases for denouncing
national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including
USA.
@Greg Bacon Yeah, I know we don't get our oil in the ME, but we justify our meddling there
and everywhere by trying to keep it out of the hands of our 'enemies' and flowing to our friends.
even if we have to create those friends and enemies in order to create a role for ourselves.
Regarding the second point you made, I didn't know that, but somehow I'm not exactly surprised!
@Philip Giraldi How do you "wreck an election"? I can imagine a number of ways from using
violence, intimidation, media pressure, buying votes, blackmail of candidates, electoral fraud,
and a few others. But none of those happened in a significant way in the 2016 elections – and
the esteemed Mr. Obama went out of his way right before the elections to say that all was in order.
Now, one can argue that some of the above always happens, and that it also happened in 2016
in US (there was some violence and media manipulation, there is always some fraud ). But how can
any sane person claim that it "wrecked the election"?
If one looks at any event long enough and is motivated to find 'irregularities', one can always
find them. But how was 2016 different from 2012,or 2000, or 1968, or any other election year?
national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including
USA.
OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of
nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?
IOW, wouldn't it be rather silly for Israel to punish a Palestinian for failing to recognize
Israel's sovereignty, when Israel doesn't even respect his right to breath, let alone have a spot
on the earth that he can call his own?
Isn't it sort of a folly for the ZUSA to demand that Russia respect our sovereignty, when we
relentlessly subvert her election processes and the stability of the nations on her borders, in
a direct and obvious attempt to destabilize their government and society? And try to do them all
manor of harm to benefit some dark and devious scheme of the (by now notorious) villains that
run our government and institutions?
It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.
or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.
But then I'll gladly pretend that Trump is going to return to us our sovereignty, and behave
within the norms of International Law, (respecting all other nation's sovereignty) and then when
that happens, then I'll agree with you vis-a-vis the importance of protecting the institutions
of our national sovereignty. Something I hope Trump will be able to wrest back from Tel Aviv,
and we can all live happily ever after.
The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything
at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections.
The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without
fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and
their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters". With that in mind, why on earth would Russia
seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is
necessary.
How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin
has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.
I see you are a well-paid 2nd-tier hasbara. A slicker, smoother, more practiced line of patter.
But, bullshit, per the usual.
Russia has long-standing agreements with Ukraine that establish rights-of-way to its bases
in Crimea. Nothing illegal was done with respect to international law. It's very typical of Israelis
to squawk nastily about "international law" that does not exist.
Good to have you aboard, Moshe! We need a good token around to shill for Israel. Keep that
bullshit coming!!
The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without
fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves
and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters".
True to a large degree. Yet:
With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America
is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.
You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real
Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they
will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all. US is a nuclear superpower and is still
a crucial player in global economy. Russia sure as hell is interested in saner and, in a good
geopolitical sense, national interests' defending US–but those interests certainly can not be
"global" in neocon "interpretation". In the end, during campaigning Trump was saying very many
right words and those words have been prepared for him by very powerful people, which testifies
to the fact of some powerful forces inside US who do understand the new game. We all are currently
at the point of no return, we are still balancing on it, whether we will cross into the "pass
the point of NR" is yet to be seen. But US power is declining both in relative and absolute terms
and this process is objective.
@Philip Giraldi Why am I beginning to get the feeling that Russia is now being catapulted
by the most complex algorithms to the forefront of the world economic ranking in order to make
them look like the ominous opponent we've already 'agreed' to make them into?
@Erebus If your analysis is correct, and it may well be, then our decline as a superpower
will be the result of Jewish hegemony and the traitorous behavior of the cuckservatives.
Philip Giraldi, pretending to be so fair and reasonable, writes, ""Sure, let's punish Russia
if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."
Punish exactly how? By making the Russians wear dunce caps? By expelling even more Russian
diplomats? Or perhaps by launching a few good ones?
The stupidity, hypocrisy, and hubris of Neocons and their bedmates, the progressives, makes
me gasp. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the sanest and safest way in troubled times is
for all parties to observe international law and not to renounce it.
Now what great human ideal, what dazzling symptom of moral and political greatness has been
achieved by bombing silly but miserably weak countries? Is Iraq a better place for anyone now?Is
Libya more democratic now? Should N. Korea be similarly treated? And of course the mother of all
questions: how should Russia be punished? Will more Nato exercises in the Baltic teach the Russians
better manners? What if they took it into their heads to conduct military exercises off the Gulf
of Mexico? Of course, that will only prove how fiendish they are, how they "interfered" with US
democracy. Interfered how? Perhaps they lifted American skirts a little too high. The US never,
ever interferes with any country's political processes. The CIA exists to ensure that every US
agency follows international law fully. But damn these Russians, they don't understand such noble
things.
Dangerous times when hypocrisy and arrogance gets mixed up with tons of stupidity and ignorance.
One minor quibble. The "golden shower" allegation was designed to be more embarrassing than
your version of it, since the story was that the prostitutes urinated on Trump and not the other
way round.
OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty
of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?
Yes, absolutely so.
It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.
or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.
A good point you make but once you observe with the naked eye most of what is going on currently
in terms of global power re-balancing–it is precisely about a bottom line of several guiding principles
applied to everyone which should be followed–respect for sovereignty is the most important of
them. It will require (and it is happening as I type is) a significant re-defining of US "exceptionalism"
before new balance is achieved but it is this new balance into whose sails the winds of history
are blowing. Having said all that, espionage and operations of influence will certainly not go
anywhere, but the level of violence will be reduced greatly.
@Cortes I knew right away that that whole golden shower story was fake because on the margins
this charge had been made about Hitler also over the years.
Seems to be the standard smear against nazis, #7 in the ol' lexicon.
former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy.
But keep in mind that it's wrong to assess Russian economy this way.
Much of Spanish or Italian economy is just tourism, wine, foods, and such stuff. Italy and
Spain don't have Power Economies.
In contrast, Russia has tons of resources, big machinery, military ware, and energy.
So, it is a Power Economy. And if Russia were to enter into war-footing, these sectors could be
expanded vastly, like during WWII.
1. Russia has been involved in financing 'green' anti EU and Ukrainian fracking for years.
This is, in fact, interesting. Liquid crude oil is fungible but natural gas is very expensive
to move around except in direct, physically connected pipelines. Ukraine could develop an unconventional
gas and oil industry -- in theory. It has resources but not the political or economic cohesion
to do anything for its economy.
2. Same with Europe. except there isn't much to develop. Romania gave it a try and could have
done something at $100 oil but its project has been abandon at current prices.
3. US sanctions on Russia resulted in 'import substitution' economic development. The Ruble
haircut (roughly half) has turned Russia into an agriculture export powerhouse. It's now the largest
exporter of grain in the world.
4. What did we do? We 'manipulated' Russia's currency downward and luck reduced (temporarily)
the value of oil exports. We pushed other countries *not* to trade with Russia. This resulted
in Russia boycotting food imports, among other things. Effectively a tariff. The only negative
was a real, significant, but transitory cost to Russian standard of living. I suppose the rationale
was to punish Putin and cause political unrest. That worked well, no?
5. Meanwhile -- Fracking. Lets call it unconventional US Oil and Gas. The US is effectively
self sufficient regarding net total trade balance of oil and gas, including refined products and
basic chemicals. Not quite as obvious as it would be if every component was in exact balance.
US refineries can get more out of heavy crude and well continue to import it and refine it. The
US produces multi millions of bbl per day of 'liquids' -- a large quantity of which are exported.
Propane, among others. Look it up if you are curious. Meanwhile, the US is the world's largest
producer of natural gas.
The entire unconventional oil industry is the only large area of expansion in the US economy
since 2008. It's why the US has done better than the rest of the developed world's economies since
2008. What replaced the housing bubble? I suppose nothing, but unconventional oil has come close.
A problem is that the benefits are more concentrated than single family housing -- which had the
advantage of being spread around fairly uniformly, with a lot going to the deplorable engaged
in a segment of the skilled labor needed to pull it off.
A policy of global hegemony focused on oil is more than backwards looking. I suppose it is
impossible not to fight the last war. WW 2 wasn't primarily about oil, but the popular narrative
tends to seriously underestimate the extent to which it was catastrophic for Germany. Russia had
it and Germany didn't. And of course -- it was fought on the Eastern Front and paid for in Russian
blood. But oil was so 20th century. Would the US design a foreign policy around the 'strategic'
asset of coal?
The point is that a commodity based view of global hegemony is old and wrong. US has been an
'agricultural' superpower for a century. And now we have made Russia the grain basket of the world.
And now oil is effectively just another commodity. Time to get with it.
@Mr. Hack Yats is not a Jew and even Ukraine's chief rabbi has said so.
Have you even looked at him? There may be blonde and blue-eyed Jews etc, but this guy has zero
Jewish features.
You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once
real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they
will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all.
In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets,
currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc. More correctly, they need something like
the USA, so the USA serves the purpose for the meanwhile. The US is collapsing from decay, where
China is on a growth spurt of yet undetermined duration, Russia on a rebirth cycle following collapse
that did not destroy it.
All interesting factors. I will say I do not believe the US can engender rebirth, and its collapse
will be properly calamitous. We shall see.
RUSSIA INC. Summarising three recent authorities, Wikipedia says Canada's GDP is greater than
Russia's and Germany's is about two and a half times greater. There's something deeply misleading
and, in fact, quite worthless about these GDP comparisons. Russia has a full-service space industry
including the only other operating global satellite navigation system.
Neither Canada nor Germany
does. It has an across the board sophisticated military industry which may be the world leader
in electronic warfare, air defence systems, silent submarines and armoured vehicles. Neither Canada
nor Germany does. It has a developed nuclear power industry with a wide range of products. Ditto.
It builds and maintains a fleet of SSBNs – some of the most complicated machinery that exists.
Ditto. Its aviation industry makes everything from competitive fighter planes through innovative
helicopters to passenger aircraft. Ditto.
It has a full automotive industry ranging from some
of the world's most powerful heavy trucks to ordinary passenger cars. It has all the engineering
and technical capacity necessary to build complex bridges, dams, roads, railways, subway stations,
power stations, hospitals and everything else.
It is a major and growing food producer and is
probably self-sufficient in food today. Its food export capacity is growing and it has for several
years been the leading wheat exporter. It has enormous energy reserves and is a leading exporter
of oil and gas. Its pharmaceutical industry is growing rapidly. It is intellectually highly competitive
in STEM disciplines – a world leader in some cases.
Its computer programmers are widely respected.
(Yes, there is a Russian cell phone.) It's true that many projects involve Western partners –
the Sukhoy Superjet for example – but it's nonetheless the case that the manufacturing and know-how
is now in Russia. Germany or Canada has some of these capabilities but few – very few – countries
have all of them. In fact, counting the EU as one, Russia is one of only four.
Therefore in Russia's
case, GDP rankings are not only meaningless, but laughably so. While Russians individually are
not as wealthy as Canadians or Germans, the foundations of wealth are being laid and deepened
every day in Russia. What of the future? Well there's a simple answer to that question – compare
Russia in 2000 with Russia in 2017: all curves are up. Of course Russians support their government
– why wouldn't they? It's doing what they hired it to do; we others can only dream of such governments.
For what it's worth, PwC predicts Russia will be first in Europe in 2050, but, even so, I think
it misses the real point: Indonesia and Brazil ahead of Russia? No way: it's not GDP/PPP that
matters, it's full service. Russia is a full-service power and it won't become any less so in
the next 30 years. Autarky. Very few aren't there? And in that little group of four autarkies
on the planet, who's going up and who's going down? A big – fatal even – mistake to count Russia
out.
As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something
having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit
more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.
Speaking of the Magnitsky Act, here is some late-breaking news that, if substantiated, will
put a completely different spin on the bogus Russia-gate scandal:
The scandal concerning the meeting between US President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump
Jr, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was orchestrated by Magnitsky act lobbyist William
Browder, the lawyer told RT in an exclusive interview.
"I´m ready to clarify the situation behind this mass hysteria – but only through lawyers
or testifying in the Senate," Veselnitskaya told RT.
"I can only assume that the current situation that has been heated up for ten days or so
by now is a a very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator – Mr. Browder.
He is one of the greatest experts in the field of manipulating mass media,"Veselnitskaya said.
She went on to say that Browder, who is the founder and CEO of the Hermitage Capital investment
company, orchestrated this whole disinformation campaign as revenge for the defeat he suffered
in a US court in 2013 from a team of lawyers that included Veselnitskaya.
"I have absolutely no doubt that this whole information [campaign] is being spun, encouraged
and organized by that very man as revenge for the defeat he suffered in court of the Southern
State of New York in the 'Perezvon' company case," she said.
"He wasn't able to convince the court with his lousy human tragedy that actually never happened,
about the fate of a dead man – who he only learnt about after his death."
In 2013, Veselnitskaya was one of the lawyers who represented a Cyprus-based holding company
Prevezon, owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, in its defense against allegations of
money laundering in a court of the Southern State of New York.
The case was settled with no admission of guilt by Prevezon.
Veselnitskaya also said she is now concerned for the safety of her family as it's been revealed
that Browder's team spied on her family's activities even before her meeting with Trump Jr.
"It's been revealed that Mr. Browder and his team have been gathering information about
my family," she told RT, adding, that Browder's team "found photos of my house and sent them
to Kyle Parker a famous man in the House of Representatives, who worked for Mr Browder for
many years – and not for any congressmen or congress as a whole."
People working for Browder also shared all her personal details with representatives of
the State Department, Veselnitskaya said.
Browder has a long history of hostility against Russia. In 2013, he was sentenced in absentia
to nine years in prison for tax evasion. He was also the boss of the late Russian auditor Sergey
Magnitsky.
According to the 2013 court verdict, Browder together with Magnitsky failed to pay over
552 million rubles in taxes (about US$16 million). The businessman was also found guilty of
illegally buying shares in the country's natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, costing Russia at least
3 billion rubles (US$100 million).
Magnitsky died in pre-trial custody in 2009. His death led to a strain in Russian-American
relations. US authorities eventually imposed sanctions against Russian officials they deemed
responsible for the auditor's death by issuing the so-called Magnitsky list in 2012. Browder
also lobbied European states to follow Washington's lead.
The Magnitsky Act is a 2012 law that allows the United States to seize assets from a number
of alleged Russian human rights abusers, as well as barring them from entering the country.
Russia retaliated by prohibiting American families from adopting Russian children.
For those who may not recall, Phil previously wrote an excellent article on the sordid Magnitsky
Act affair here on Unz. IIRC, Browder managed to get Sen. McCain to stand on the floor of the
senate and make a sales pitch (with fancy presentation materials) to convince the rest of the
senate to vote in favour of passing the Magnitsky Act, which they did. Hopefully, this story will
now begin to unravel like a ball of yarn.
"Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused
of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking"
We've been Fracking since the early 20th century, there are always risks but overall it is
a safe alternative. Time to stop getting our oil from countries who use their wealth to spread
terror/sharia, whose only aim is to build a global calipahte.
@lavoisier Well, it's not really an "analysis" as such. If one goes back to the literature
of the time, one sees that Triffen's Dilemma was known to the policy makers, and was hovering
overhead in the deliberations leading up to Nixon's "closing the gold window" in 1971.
Dollar Hegemony was very attractive because it offered the West the opportunity to do an end
run around its military stalemate in its Great Game with the USSR. Though closing the gold window
was a policy decision, the attraction was not lost on the captain's of American industry. They
could count on a generation or so of extraordinary profit and scrambled on board.
It was Dollar Hegemony that underpinned the West's takedown of the USSR. By loaning the USSR
"hard currency" (remember that term?), and then collapsing the prices of the stuff the USSR exported
to pay back the loans, the USSR was forced into austerity, and ultimately default.
That plan is a matter of historical record, so didn't require any "analysis" on my part either.
They tried the same thing again in 2014, but I suspect the Russians were ready for them this time.
As for the Jewish part, the elite in most countries are "international" in their lifestyle
and outlook. Yes, Jews are over-represented there, and are possibly more "international" in outlook
than goy elites, but real "Jewish hegemony" comes later with the rise of the Financial State.
Having laid out the ground work in the '90s with the repeal of Glass-Steagal etc, it really takes
off at the time of 9/11, which coincided with the 2nd shoe dropping on the American economy. Namely,
China's ascendance to the WTO and gaining Most Favoured Nation status.
To make Dollar Hegemony work, you need a powerful, and effective military. They got the "powerful"
part, in the sense that the USM is really good at blowing stuff up, but they muffed the "effective",
and so here we are.
@chris Chris, if memory serves, Norman Davies (in his selection of key moments and people
"Europe" – a door stopper of a book) went much further in describing the sexual pathology of Hitler.
I may be mistaken (won't be the first or only time) so don't sue me. Check out the relevant section
of the book.
Here, dealing with President Trump, the effort appears to me to be defamatory and consistent with
the seeming ongoing campaign to destabilise his presidency by actors known and unknown.
@Flavius "DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason
at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do."
I can't agree with that. I would say that total global control is the ultimate motivation.
America's role is to be the persuader and enforcer until such time as relative parity is achieved
and then America can be reduced to little more than a struggling entity that can be slotted in
amongst the other competing economic zones (all controlled by the same interests) in a competitive
race to the bottom scenario.
@Patrick Armstrong A very potent and astute piece of analysis – kudos to you, sir.
Now why don't the great economists in their ivory towers get these common sense things right?
An economy making everything from A to Z is way different from an economy based on wines, cheese,
and chocolates. A wild thought: Perhaps common sense should be made a compulsory part of many
curriculums. Yes, no?
Here's the weekly update on #UNRIG which, due to being attacked last week by Zionist entities
in US, has added a second demand – AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL.
@Mr. Hack Where to begin? How about the notion that John McCain has a good name to besmirch.
("Besmearch" sounds a bit like something a James Bond villain would do, no?)
Next, why the pretense? Everyone knows that Fuktoria was speaking with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine,
Geoffrey Ross Pyatt. From Wikipedia,
"In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should be in the government
after Viktor Yanukovych's ouster and in what ways they might achieve that transition, with
the name of Arseniy Yatsenyuk (whom Nuland refers to as "Yats") coming up several times. Specifically,
the two spoke about which opposition leaders they would like to see in government, what pitches
they would give each opposition leader in subsequent calls to achieve this, and strategies
on how they would try to manage the 'personality problems' and conflicts between the different
opposition leaders with ambitions to become president.[15][16] Yatsenyuk became prime minister
of Ukraine on February 27, 2014″
So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister. Porky, the chocolate king, subsequently
became president. Maybe your hearing is bad: they ruled out Klitch from the top positions.
Ya, that's the irony, that the Nudelwoman took power by unleashing a bunch of Banderites and
neo-nazis. Pretty funny, huh? BTW, are you sure Mr. Hack isn't really Mr. Hasbara?
So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister.
Yes, and millions of US citizens who voted in the last elections had their choice for president
validated too. Were they all involved in some nefarious, covert act too? I replayed the video
clip, and while the 'great reporter' talks about Nuland's favorite for the top Ukrainian post,
photos of Klitschko were being transferred over the viewing screen. Still, it was Poroshenko and
not Yatseniuk that filled the top post. In fact, Poroshenko's name was never mentioned in the
nefarious phone call?? BTW, Poroshenko was elected president by way of a monitored and free election
several months after the events on the Maidan had settled down.
For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis',
just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary
Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?
@Mr. Hack {For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites'
and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated
view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and
'neo-Nazis?}
Don't know about Porkyshenko, but The Yats is a neo-Nazi*: scroll down and take a gander
of The Yats giving the traditional greeting to his Nazi Master, Adolf. (right after Oleh Tyahnybok).
"One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups,
most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies."
And Russian environmental critics of Putin, such as Evgueniya Chirikova and Nadezdha Kutepova,
are notoriously sponsored by organizations linked to the US government. The moral outrage of the
American establishment is totally hypocritical. Anything is right or wrong just when it serves
the interests of the American establishment.
In fact, much of the Russian opposition is financed by Washington, but this has never generated
any tearing of the Yankee mainstream media.
As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength,
while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential
(and of real living standards in its per capita format).
In the former domain, Russia is indeed a minor; in the latter domain, it is indeed comparable
to Germany.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk [center], former PM of Ukraine, also NOT performing a Nazi slaute.
I take this quote directly from underneath the photo in the article that you cite. Not an expert
on correct 'Nazi salutes' I'll defer to the author of this photo for his knowledge on this matter.
Yatseniuk, may have showed some solidarity with rightists like Tyahnybok during the Maidan period,
but he's never been known for any far right viewpoints or belonging to any far right political
parties, and indeed has been referred to as a Jew on many occasions. I don't know for a fact whether
or not he's Jewish, not having taken a part in either his Christian baptism, nor his Jewish Bar
Mitzvah.
As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted
GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living
standards in its per capita format).
Somewhat true. But while PPP is, indeed, "better" it is still highly inaccurate, and I mean
highly. Reason being the "adjustment" itself, which changes dramatically across the whole spectrum
of real (that is productive) economy plus calculation of costs in general–e.g. US healthcare system.
While highly developed and world-class (most of the time), its "cost calculations" (through "charge
masters") is ridiculous but it is this number (horrendously inflated) which goes in as part of
US GDP. But here is an example which anyone will understand, since unlike financial transactions,
it is an essential and extremely important service, that is healthcare. My mother just recently,
in Moscow nonetheless, literally built all her teeth anew–she has now literally a new mouth. She
paid 130 000 Rubles. World class dentist, excellent equipment, great service, implants etc–whole
9 yards. Now, if converted directly to US Dollar it comes up to 2167 USD. What can I do for that
here, in US? I know for sure, my good acquaintance dentist offered me a single implant (and I
really need it badly) of an upper tooth for a good price of 2 500 USD. Should I do to my teeth
(desirable for me) what my mother did–I would end up with 20 000 + bill in the best case scenario.
How do we convert that? I looked once at the cost (covered by my insurance, thankfully) of one
of my CT scans–2 000 + USD. This is without "reading" it. As you may have guessed it already,
the same procedure in Russia will cost much-much less, this is without counting free ones, but
you have to wait there for weeks or even months. Here are simple examples of those gigantic discrepancies.
Once one gets into real hi-tech manufacturing field, most (not all) Western "economists" will
have their brains exploding.
@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and Anatoly – Thanks for explaining this. I last studied economics
in an introductory course taught by Milton Friedman. I came away with a "C" and forgot everything
I had learned almost immediately.
@Michael Kenny Lets punish Russia? Are you sure that you have big enough punisher?
How you people get to think and say such a things? Are you not aware that Russia can obliterate
USA and western Europe in 30 mins? No anti-rocket system will help, russian missiles can change
their trajectory in flight (american don´t ) -- Not adding that to defend against thousands of missiles
is virtually impossible. You still writing like you have power over Russia,this is the most stupid
thing you can do – but of course , you are an exceptional representative of the exceptional people
You have a donkey for the president, and you blame it on Russia? Whole world is having fun watching
this opera..
As to international law, USA and NATO countries are in the gravest breach of the international
law, they have executed illegal war and occupation in Serbia, since 1999.(That is just first of
many) Let us first punish that, together with reparations to the attacked nation, and then you
can start speaking about "International law".
I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately
Very similar, albeit I scored A ("5″) IIRC on my Political Economy Of Capitalism (did less
well on the same but of Socialism) in naval academy. But life forced me, eventually, especially
against the collapse of the USSR and our lives being thrown in complete disarray (politely speaking),
to start review and, eventually, study the subject anew.
In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons --
markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc.
Secret to China's economic miracle are precisely these very American markets, which were opened
to Chinese-made goods. Russia is far-far less, on several orders of magnitude, less dependent
on US markets than China, hence Russia has much bigger room for maneuver. But in the rest, you
are correct–US is too important to global economic balance, even despite being so damaging to
it, to think that possible collapse could be contained. It could not be contained completely.
Some sort of accommodation has to be found. What sort? I am not competent enough to be very specific,
plus we will have to go into military-political aspect of that issue.
@Patrick Armstrong Just to add one personal observation. I know Russia very well, lived there
for 12 years, last time in 1991. Then I visited Russia several times until 2006 – improvement
was visible, but nothing prepared me to the Russsia 2017! Even people on the street changed –
to the positive. As to buildings, stores, it is incredible, I couldn´t recognize old Russia, everything
was new, shining, smart and much better than before.
Russians are optimistic , which was
impossible in nineties! It was really a shock for me, very nice shock I don´t know how to express
to you this enormous surprise I never thought such transformation possible .
So speaking about Russia like about some sick giant is a very stupid thing to do. Today, Russia
from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence. I think Western
leaders still think about Russia in categories of 90´s, and that is a big mistake. They should
understand once for all, that Russia has to be treated as equal, and not messed with, like in
Ukraine. If they will not, I think that the Russia will pass from partner, to the Master.
Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence
Without any jokes, however lighthearted this my statement may appear to you, one of the fields
in which Russia's greatness is unsurpassed by the US is the field of 100% cotton socks. No, I
don't mean those white (and warm) cotton socks any COSTCO or department stores sell. No, I am
talking about 100% cotton socks of thin and different colors (including of dressy kind) you can
by in any Russian department store or Auchan. This is not the case with US anymore.
For years
now I was either bringing back with me or whenever any of our friends flew to Russia and back–the
request is always the same: bring 10-12 pairs of not-white thin 100% cotton socks. I gave up trying
to find these socks in US long time ago now, probably circa 2008-09. Including by means of internet.
This is really ridiculous in the nation which was known around the world for its superb cotton
products from jeans to socks for decades. I am almost forced now to go back to Russia next year
to buy socks–jokes aside, a very serious consideration among few others.
@Andrei Martyanov Coming from a natural resource science background I would argue that GDP
is not relevant to a sustainable society. The concept of GDP is based on the mythology of ever
increasing growth. This has been debunked by the late Dr. Bartlett many years ago:
What is relevant is a sustainable society that maintains soil quality/fertility, water quality,
and does not exceed the human carrying capacity of the land. More recently, the concept of doughnut
economics encapsulates this:
Doughnut Economics – Grab a pencil, draw a doughnut!
Perhaps Russia can delay civilizational collapse by not following the the Western economic
growth trap with the fracking, GMOs, water pollution, etc that is destroying what was once the
resource rich land of America.
ps. Another quibble with GDP or PPP measurements is that it does not adequately measure WEALTH
generated from the internal economy. See the automatic earth website for a different economic
model.
Even a 100% accurate system can be made useless if someone sets the warhead to detonate upon
hitting the ground. Hitting a rocket (which is the goal) would only result in a nearby mushroom
cloud. That's quite a predicament for the operators and for the host country.
@Mr. Hack Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in
Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have
nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?
Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the direct
responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine, read about
Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in contact with
the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?
Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the Director
of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully elected and acting
president?
I disagree with a lot of my American friends because they cannot conceive the notion that projects
designed to benefit all of society are not necessarily evil socialism.
I believe in affordable healthcare for all and think Trump could achieve this by infusing the
VA Hospital system with some extra funds and by using the Cuban healthcare methodology and then
offering the service to those in need and charging according to what people can afford to pay.
Medical students would be selected purely on merit and would work in the hospital as orderlies,
cooks, cleaners whatever while undergoing studies. Post-graduation they would work within the
system at a low income for about 10 years to repay their education. Medicines would be produced
within the system and any profits from R & D would be ploughed back into the system. Preventative
care would also be a feature.
Private healthcare would remain untouched for those who want it and can afford it. I have it
myself.
It could be done, would cost far less than thought and ALL would benefit except perhaps the
greedy and immoral. America would be a better nation for it.
@annamaria I'm curious why those of your persuasion aren't at all rattled by Russia's blatant
attempts to unduly influence events in Ukraine during the Maidan period:
According to government documents released by former Deputy Interior Minister Hennadiy Moskal,
Russian officials served as advisers to the operations against protesters. Codenamed "Wave"
and "Boomerang", the operations involved the use of snipers to disperse crowds and capture
the protesters' headquarters in the House of Trade Unions. Before some police officers defected,
the plans included the deployment of 22,000 combined security troops in Kiev.[84] According
to the documents, the former first deputy of the Russian GRU stayed at the Kiev Hotel, played
a major role in the preparations, and was paid by the Security Services of Ukraine.. agents
had been stationed in Kiev throughout the Euromaidan protests, had been provided with "state
telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and had kept in regular contact with
Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups
which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities
of this so-called antiterrorist operation.
@Mr. Hack There is a wonderful episode from a famous novel by Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol,
where an official tells a story of an officer's widow who allegedly whipped herself with a lash.
According to your fiction (since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan'
and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev), Russians have arranged
the regime change in Kiev themselves – "cut off your nose to spite your face," in short. You have
also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept
and its ziocon handlers.
Here is a report from much more reliable source of information than the ziocon-controlled MSM:
"Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance, " by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html
Repost:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/
since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan'
presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev
Just where have I ommitted reference to Nuland and Brennan. You must be mixing up my comments
with somebody else? I've noted that both were in Kyiv, but question their ability to direct a
movement that was homegrown from the very beginning and till the bitter end.
You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the
US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.
You're right, I have for the most part omitted reference to any far right parties. Svoboda,
the largest of these, barely can muster 3% support in national elections. I'd rather concentrate
my purview on the other 97% of the voter base, than on a 3% minority party.
But since you've brought up what I've conveniently omitted, HOW ABOUT YOU? No comment regarding
the obtrusive and deadly amalgamation of FSB personnel in Ukraine during these events? From what
I've read, they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies or courses in how to create a
civil society?
" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"
It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan
who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian
population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince the UNZ readers that the
Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime Minister? – Mr. Groysman?
"Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How come that the predominantly anti-semitic
Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain
that this is also the Russians' fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli
to the governorship of Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence
with the regime change in 2014.
"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable sources, from
consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus (
http://turcopolier.typepad.com )
have ever suggested that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep
in mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic
Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they are
hated by ziocons.
@Rurik some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59
Yes, indeed. You beat me to it.
" President Trump has decided to end the CIA's covert program to arm and train moderate
Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according
to U.S. officials."
Now that they've "decided," let's hope they get on with it, (and don't compensate with some
other lunacy).
"... I suppose they forecast – and in many ways they reflect Washington's own malignant unintended-consequences thinking process – that if Putin were only removed, all the USA's troubles with Russia would be over. ..."
"... It would fall back into susceptibility to misdirection and manipulation, and the west would be able to maneuver it into self-destructive behaviors by working through its corrupt oligarchs and it would end up something like Ukraine, only bigger – nominally a state, but really a collection of fiefdoms more or less owned outright by wealthy citizens who follow their own interests and constantly inveigh against one another for influence and power. ..."
"... Putin is the only one who is predictable in that he is unpredictable, and he will reach a point nobody knows is there when he will decide to take action. Once the decision is made he seldom backs away from it, and his involvement with the business of the nation is total – there just seems to be no chink in the armor through which he can be subverted to self-interest. ..."
"... Medvedev, by contrast, was a pushover. The west simply had to flatter him on the surface that it considered him the most progressive leader of Russia ever, and loved his 'liberal reforms' which rewarded disobedience and self-interest. ..."
"... All he ever got was the occasional pat on the head, and encouragement to continue weakening political power in Russia. Of course if you completely let people have their own way without any articulate national vision, they will pursue self-interest. ..."
"... The problem of a Russian President "After Putin" is a real problem. This inevitable "change of the guard" threatens Russia's political and economic stability and the possibility of Medvedev II (a pushover), or some confrontational nationalist while both remote, can't be completely discarded. ..."
"... Another danger is too much adherence to neoliberalism. In this sense China is in a better position, They are just more flexible. They still have China Communist Party as a counterbalance to oligarchs. Which is also far from perfect and creates the constant stream of corruption. But due to this, they can be neoliberals today and not so much tomorrow. ..."
"... Absolute, unipolar hegemony of the USA, when it can essentially dictate any country its will, and unliterary declare sanctions, without much danger of blowback, is probably gradually coming to the end. Ideology in which the USA based in dominance - neoliberalism - is now discredited. That's alone dooms the empire. ..."
"... So the situation mirrors the USSR and crisis of Marxism. The signs of rot of neoliberal society inside the USA are visible. And the decimation of the "Rust Belt" and the election of Trump are two such signs. ..."
(In Jason Matthews's upcoming Kremlin's Candidate the characters are going to assassinate
Putin, and there was a similar plotline in Ted Bell's Patriot though it was unsuccessful
and I didn't mention it in the review)
I suppose they forecast – and in many ways they reflect Washington's own malignant unintended-consequences
thinking process – that if Putin were only removed, all the USA's troubles with Russia would be
over.
It would fall back into susceptibility to misdirection and manipulation, and the west would
be able to maneuver it into self-destructive behaviors by working through its corrupt oligarchs
and it would end up something like Ukraine, only bigger – nominally a state, but really a collection
of fiefdoms more or less owned outright by wealthy citizens who follow their own interests and
constantly inveigh against one another for influence and power.
And I think there is a real fear this might happen; Putin cannot last forever, and the only
ones I can think of who show anything like the necessary steel are Lavrov and Shoigu.
Of those, Shoigu is mostly loyal and we see little evidence of his own thinking process, merely
his obedience. Lavrov is wedded to the diplomatic process, as one might expect from a lifetime
diplomat.
Putin is the only one who is predictable in that he is unpredictable, and he will reach
a point nobody knows is there when he will decide to take action. Once the decision is made he
seldom backs away from it, and his involvement with the business of the nation is total – there
just seems to be no chink in the armor through which he can be subverted to self-interest.
Medvedev, by contrast, was a pushover. The west simply had to flatter him on the surface
that it considered him the most progressive leader of Russia ever, and loved his 'liberal reforms'
which rewarded disobedience and self-interest.
Think tanks continued to write disparaging critiques of life in Russia, rampant corruption,
loads of civic unrest, bla, bla, as if none of those reforms had ever been made.
All he ever got was the occasional pat on the head, and encouragement to continue weakening
political power in Russia. Of course if you completely let people have their own way without any
articulate national vision, they will pursue self-interest.
This is a very good, insightful comment. Medvedev was a real disaster and that can happen
again.
The problem of a Russian President "After Putin" is a real problem. This inevitable "change
of the guard" threatens Russia's political and economic stability and the possibility of Medvedev
II (a pushover), or some confrontational nationalist while both remote, can't be completely
discarded.
The President in Russia has way too much power and that while was necessary and helpful
in order to rebuild Russia after Yeltsin rule eventually it might become dangerous for the
society. Let's call it Gorbachov II type of danger.
Another danger is too much adherence to neoliberalism. In this sense China is in a better
position, They are just more flexible. They still have China Communist Party as a counterbalance
to oligarchs. Which is also far from perfect and creates the constant stream of corruption.
But due to this, they can be neoliberals today and not so much tomorrow.
Russia elite needs to play its game of Putin succession very carefully, very skillfully
in order not to provoke inflicting too much damage on itself, the damage Washington and it
allies are still capable and willing to inflict.
The need to secure peaceful economic development for at least a couple of decades, if not
more should be the cornerstone of Russian foreign policy.
The USA is way too strong now. and if you count transnational corporations (who are the
real rulers in Washington, DC) it will probably remains in this position until the end of "oil
age". China rise and the fact that China GDP now is exceeding the USA is a secondary factor,
as China depends on the West in many key areas including technology and does not has allies
like the USA, which BTW includes almost all former British empire. Plus EU with its 500 millions
population.
Absolute, unipolar hegemony of the USA, when it can essentially dictate any country its
will, and unliterary declare sanctions, without much danger of blowback, is probably gradually
coming to the end. Ideology in which the USA based in dominance - neoliberalism - is now discredited.
That's alone dooms the empire.
So the situation mirrors the USSR and crisis of Marxism. The signs of rot of neoliberal
society inside the USA are visible. And the decimation of the "Rust Belt" and the election of Trump
are two such signs.
But a high level of influence on the world stage (including in culture, science and technology)
will continue for some time after absolute hegemony is lost.
Regarding the newest row between Russia and US about US seizing Russian diplomatic compounds,
why does Russia again only complain but doesn't really do anything?
If the US seizes Russian property on American soil the correct countermeasure would be to
seize American property on Russian soil.
The same goes for those diplomats that the Obama administration deported. Russia has still
not extradited any US diplomats in return.
Usually countries answer to provocations like these with similar actions, but Russia
chooses not to.
Wow, karl! So much activity in just one day! One has to imagine you, sitting tight in the
badly lit poorly airconditioned bunker beneath Helsinki, reading one newspice about Russia
after another, then, with you shaly hand, taking off the glasses from your red with rage
sweaty face and exploding in:
"DAS WAR EN BEFEHL! DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL!"
Well, Karl, it would be a dull world if everyone behaved like robots engaging in tit-4-tat
behaviours that by their very nature increase the chances of all-out war and annihilation. If
Russia has a choice between two actions or a choice of several actions against US
provocation, why should Moscow behave the way you (and the Americans) expect?
As soon as Mike McFaul was appointed Spaso House was hosting one kreakl after another.
Confiscating that property would make it a lot more difficult to do that. Taking the
Anglo-American school might cause the United States to cut back the number of embassy
employees. With relations as they are, I would say that it is bloated and unnecessary.
They could build the American Ambassador a new residence which reflected the current state of
the countries' relations; perhaps something like
this
. It should be
on the outskirts of the city, far away from everything to minimize his meddling, and be in
the center of about an acre of asphalt so that he could not leave without being spotted.
Better still, just break off diplomatic relations and send him off to be the Russian
Ambassador in Prague, like RFE/RL is.
The Russian government actually owns Pullman House, which serves as the residence of the
Russian Ambassador to the United States, having
paid
$350,000.00 for it in 1913
. Spaso House, though, does not belong to the USA – the
first US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, William C Bullit,
'selected' it as his official residence
, and
leased it for three years. I suppose the US government still pays something for using it, but
the USA doesn't own it.
His essay includes remarks about how US ratings agencies appear to be adjuvant parts of
the Treasury economic warfare unit; the application of lessons learned in production of
military assets to ensuring that civilian enterprises benefit from leading edge technologies
to gain significant product improvement and cost reductions; and further detail on the high
speed rail system being developed.
Debt is not the main parameter of Uncle Scumbag's decline. It is the de-diversification and
offshoring of most manufacturing. Aside from the military sector, the US civilian economy has
transformed into a mercantile trickle down of cheap imports sold at high prices. Nobody has
demonstrated how the downsized, right-sized, and offshored economy is supposed to be
sustainable. All I see is a catabolic process where enough money keeps circulating in the
system as the middle class disappears. The trickle down injection of money creates retail low
wage jobs and props up consumer demand. But ultimately the consumers in the USA will become a
minority. There is a clear shift of the job spectrum from well paying ones (related to
manufacturing) to low wage ones (retail sector and "services"). Consumption is lubricated by
debt increases both private and public (the local and federal governments in the USA are
propping up consumption).
US multinationals do not care since they gain consumers abroad faster than they lose
consumers at home. A globalist mega-corporation wins from the expansion of the middle class
in China, India and elsewhere. These corporations are literally walking over the dead body of
the USA to reach their goals.
By contrast, Russia is diversifying and de-offshoring and import substituting. As the
cherry on top of this GDP growth cake, Russia has a very low debt (both public and private).
Russia's growth and development is basically natural and not artificial stimulus through debt
generation.
The trash talk about "Russia does not make anything" (Obama) and "Russia is a gas
station posing as an economy" (McShitStain) reflects deep insecurity by US leaders.
They know
that post-globalism America will be a 3rd world husk. Trump is going to have to really act
like a dictator to unseat the globalist corporate interests that steer the US. I don't see
this happening.
JohnHelmer.net:
THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY,
BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor
Pinchuk, in exchange for personal favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was
reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.
Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the
Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian government inquiries into the theft of billions of
dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then transferred
to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to
offshore entities controlled by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid. Theft of the IMF money was
first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank
"... But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated statements that their patience is wearing thin. ..."
"... On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." ..."
"... Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane. ..."
"... Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix. ..."
A 45-acre Russian diplomatic compound near Centreville, Md., that was seized in December 2016.
After President Trump's victory in November, Michael T. Flynn, who went on to become the national
security adviser
for 24 days
, prevailed upon President Vladimir V. Putin to
refrain from retaliating
, with the promise that United States policy toward Russia would be
far more accommodating under a Trump administration.
Mr. Trump, at the time president-elect, praised Mr. Putin's restraint,
posting
on Twitter
, "Great move on delay" and "I always knew he was very smart!"
But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated
statements that their patience is wearing thin.
Russia began focusing attention on the two seized compounds in the lead up to the
first meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump
at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany,
on July 7.
Both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry mentioned them frequently, hinting that the diplomatic
retreats were perhaps something Mr. Trump could easily deliver as a friendly gesture for the first
meeting. Mr. Putin did raise the issue with the American president, according to Dmitri S. Peskov,
the Kremlin spokesman.
But with Trump associates under investigation for ties with the Russians, the president is hesitant
to send any signals of weakness. So it did not happen then, either. Since that meeting, the official
tone has turned more belligerent, with Russia threatening to expel American diplomats to match the
35 Russian diplomatic staff members kicked
out
of the United States at the same time that the two compounds were seized.
On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any
headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a
blunt statement
. In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other
concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia
has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."
The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax on Tuesday, "The fact
that this issue hasn't been settled actually poisons the atmosphere and makes a lot of things extremely
complicated."
Mr. Ryabkov and the United States under secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon, discussed the property
in talks in Washington on Monday.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of
the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in
Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed
back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight"
and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing
standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually
wane.
Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who
would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch
attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration
would find difficult to fix.
And on Tuesday, Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a conference call with journalists
that "our patience is still running out."
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential
elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same
level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still
standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences
agencies involved?
MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former
military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned
it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.
That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water,
a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly
for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.
A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular
Far Eastern Federal University , some
70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.
Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's
chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed:
a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including
one in a Baltic swamp.
Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week,
the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation
about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.
Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian
lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and
his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.
"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's
support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and
publicist working for Emin.
While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving
as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are
often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.
Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a
hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies
and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.
When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats,
diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group
whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.
In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov,
a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump
presidential campaign.
"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one
if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential
Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner,
says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.
In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent
to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source
of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has
been in that position since 2006.
In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information
passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services
could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.
That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After
Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov
rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction
and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.
Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband
both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital,
and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.
Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company
in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.
Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of
lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's
Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.
It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to
try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.
"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you
are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann,
noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.
In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with
Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was
discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely
with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses
in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given
to the campaign.
Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was
about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."
The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.
For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome
diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.
He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied
computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.
He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill
pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.
What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually
mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a
chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.
Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on
its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.
"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in
Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former
managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm.
"He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."
Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic
son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or
posing with Robert De Niro
at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.
Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs
posted old pictures
of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.
Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs
have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the
United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential
complex "Manhattan."
In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump
met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned
Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.
The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow
as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.
Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic
cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project,
including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.
"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in
a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably
be in the construction phase today."
The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the
bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers
of power in Russia.
In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government
of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic
Union.
In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services
to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for
example, building new border posts.
By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work
to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former
Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.
In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."
Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling
the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental
trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project,
he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant
costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.
Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction
costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.
"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the
political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin.
I have to make sacrifices."
Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads
him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things
that you cannot turn down."
"... Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him. ..."
"... The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently college professors do as well. ..."
"... He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their competitor. ..."
"... Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative. ..."
"... Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal. ..."
"... Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons. ..."
"... In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal critics nonetheless. ..."
"... Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the implacable bad guy. ..."
"... Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems. ..."
"... However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed. ..."
"... There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie, which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere. ..."
"... Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria." What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr ..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges. ..."
"... Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression." ..."
"... Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al Nusra. ..."
"... As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist Ukrainian State in the West. ..."
"... And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of the Russians can be understood. ..."
Vladimir
Putin will seem like a great guy to masses of non-establishment Right-wingers. The American
Right is split between an official opposition to the Left, and a much more boisterous and
genuine Right that the establishment keeps out of public view. As George Hawley points out in
his
study
of Rightist critics of the conservative movement, these two Rights have been mortal
enemies for decades; and it wouldn't surprise me if Tucker Carlson, who dwells largely in the
bubble of Washington's elite, blue-blood Republican conservatism, knew nothing about the
attitudes of a Right that he doesn't hang with. The only pro-Putin voices whom he's had on his
program are those of two dissenting Leftists, Stephen Cohen and Oliver Stone.
It would be unfair for me to close without noting a sensible comment about Putin that I
discovered where I least expected to find it, from a senior editor of
Weekly Standard
.
Christopher Caldwell expresses eloquently in
a speech at Hillsdale
College
why non-respectable conservatives admire Putin, warts and all. What Caldwell
observes about Putin as a symbol of resistance to globalism and the cultural Left seems
entirely credible; and Caldwell's remarks conclude with this noteworthy statement:
Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns
out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He
writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most
recently
Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents
. His books have been
translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
Obviously you think you are a shining example that everyone aspires to emulate, but I've got
news for you: Not all conservatives are enamored with Paul Gottfried, either.
How can Putin be described as right-wing? While his administration had been repressive of the
LGBT community and has reached out to the Easter Orthodox Church, but that's like Saudi
Arabia, which while conservative is not the same kind of conservative as American
conservatives.
The guest explained this was natural, since "President Vladimir Putin does not subscribe
to their progressive worldview as Soviet leaders did."
If loving Netanyahu is right? Oh, lets not go there
I know the current c***servatives praise sodomy and abortion, but I don't and for that
reason, have rejected Conservatism, Inc. which apparently has infected TAC, so TAC is
NR-lite.
Also one can praise a specific policy and action without praising someone in general.
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be
wary of his expansionist ambitions.
This is nonsense on stilts.
Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a
bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in
the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to
disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world.
Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western
powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support
the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be
granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia,
Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their
actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting
secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided
to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him.
The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against
growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently
college professors do as well.
First, James Kirchik is a joke of a commentator etc, and his writing and punditry only works
if you treat it as satire. This is the guy who advocated that the US military overthrow a
Trump presidency, remember.
Second, Putin is impressive in that he reliably acts in the
Russian national interest (as he and Russians see it, not as told to him by Obama). And he
skillfully advances that interest. He is quite obviously a very capable statesman and
administrator. Russians' quality of life has improved greatly under his tenure, and Russia's
global 'importance' is greater than since the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't think I'd
want to live under his rule, but I'm not Russian.
The West sort of proves what Russians suspect it of – hypocrisy. The West has limited
its vocabulary to strong and vague words like democracy, freedom (of speech, religion etc.),
equality, antidiscrimination. But the real logic behind those words goes against them
In western "democracy", one judge can block a president backed by 60 million people, a
court that consists of 9 people can impose same sex marriage on 300 million people
According to the western "freedom" of speech, websites that discourage abortions are
illegal (in France), the questioning of multiculturalism can be increasingly interpreted as
unacceptable hate speech, even though it's a completely legitimate view to hold
According to western "antidiscrimination" and "equality", when a christian baker or
somebody, refuses to provide service for homosexual wedding, he/she breaks the law and is
being opressed through bureaucratic means
So Russians have increasingly good reasons to conclude that the West is full of hubris,
but in the end will not deliver on what it claims to preach. So this sense of cultural
superiority in the West over Russia, in russian eyes, is more and more hypocritical, which
makes Russia with all its vices, in the end, very similar to the West, which means that
Russia doesn't have to change at all, or at least that there's no country that one should
look up to. Russians at least can openly discourage abortions, unlike the French
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary
of his expansionist ambitions?
Anyone, who knows anything beyond what the Fake News reports about Ukraine and Syria is
perfectly aware of highly pertinent facts, historical context as to Russia acting in it's
National Interest. Something the US Foreign Policy apparatus fails to do on behalf of the
alleged domestic population it PRETENDS to represent.
The population within US territories are strapped with the MOST AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT ON
THE PLANET!
I mean seriously, "oops, no WMD, over there!" The hyjackers are from Saudi? Well, let's
invade all those other places on flimsy to nil National Security interest.
Perhaps, the author of this "piece" should stick to Humanities.
I am not particularly invested in being an "admirer" of Vladimir Putin as a political leader,
given his autocratic machinations as ruler of Russia and the likelihood that he has engaged
in political assassination to solidify his hold on power, albeit more circumspectly than
Barack Obama, who spoke openly about his Sunday evenings composing his "kill list".
What I am insistent upon is that Republicans recognize the value Putin has for the United
States as the vehicle by which we can comfortably, perhaps even profitably, give up our role
as the rulers of a global empire. We can cede to Russia our wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere
in the Arab East, we can withdraw from being co-belligerent in the military tensions between
Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia, Russia and any country outside our actual commitments
to NATO. Putin allows us the opportunity to do this because he is willing to step in as the
champion of Christians and Christian civilization in these regions, and all we have been
willing to champion is our parochial self-interests – and we haven't done a very good
job of that. Putin, precisely because he is seeking to advance Russia's own interests, not
forfeit them again in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union, is the man we
want in charge in Russia. It has nothing to do with Putin modelling our preferences for a
President of the United States (we can certainly still find better than Donald Trump). But he
does model a sound foreign policy, even when confronted with the threat of terrorism far
greater than we face.
"With notable exceptions, the further one moves to the Right, the less anti-Putin people
sound."
I have no small admiration for Pres Putin, reasons stated on TAC several times. None of
those reasons have any impact on my conservative orthodoxy, none.
In fact, I have no idea why there would be any measure of impact on my conservatism, because
I think we need to foster as healthy a relationship as possible with as many nations as
possible.
If there comes a time when we have to go to war with Russia, so be it. But I don't see any
evidence that such is the case. It has been utterly foolish to engage in destabilizing Syria.
Our hands are full wit the mistakes in Iraq and I include Afghanistan.
I think anyone who is making contentions that Saudi Arabia is fostering terrorist against
US interests needs to put up so there can be a full and fair gearing on the issue. Not the I
don't Saudi Arabia Royal Family because twenty years ago, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly
Muslim. Where's the case that the Saudi family knew and endorsed the matter – which
would be cause for war. Not terrorist complaints because they have issues with other Middle
East country someone favors. And for the record, I have yet to receive a dime from the Saudis -- so skip the mouth piece mantra.
You don't like ISIS/ISIL fine who does I am unclear. But at least have some idea from when
they sprang and why. Being Sunni is hardly a rationale to advocate some pitch and post war on
them.
But supporting the current exec. does not mean dancing a jig with Pres Putin. And it has
little or nothing to do with being a conservative in my view. I have a healthy respect for
who he and the transformative place he is taking his country.
He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of
some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the
Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted
to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their
competitor.
Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That
however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative.
>>His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to
be wary of his expansionist ambitions.
Whether the West behaviour in the Ukraine and Syria means something? Like Kiev is many
thousand km from Washington, but of course it's not expansionist, sure.
It's not "love", it's just a simple understanding of a simple fact. Soros is the problem.
Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal.
Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the
good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has
joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons.
They just don't like Hillary or Team Hillary or the current Outrage that passes for
politics of those sore losers.
There is no American interest in liking Putin or any other foreign leader. We have
interests, not likes. And there are interests we can advance with Putin, as well as those
that oppose him.
I am not going to ask conservatives here what they think of Kirchik, I want to ask the many
liberals that comment here if they consider Kirchik a conservative. And please, I am fully
aware of how a lot of liberals have this need to lecture on what a conservative should be
(basically a liberal), what I want to know is if you SINCERELY believe that Kirchik is
conservative.
As much as I hate to disagree with Prof. Gottfried, I must. Putin and Russia have to be
looked at in the context of the grand scheme of things.
In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed
by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views
himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best
interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal
critics nonetheless.
Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian
hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative
that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the
Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of
better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge
into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the
ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the
implacable bad guy.
Mr. Gottfried takes out of context remarks made on the May 17th Tucker Carlson Tonight show.
This is what was said immediately before Carlson's guest, Eric Prince, said, "It's amazing.
When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Tucker Carlson (at 0:50): "How should we see the Russians?"
Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater, a private military contracter): "The Russians suffer
from Islamic terrorism as well. Whether it's attacks on their subways, their schools -- the
Beslan massacre killed over 300 kids -- they suffer from it as badly as we do. So, that is
actually one area of common interest that the United States, western civilization, and Russia
[sic] should have with the Russians."
Carlson: "That seems an obvious point. Trump ran on that point. A lot of people thought it
was common sense. Why the resistance to that among foreign policy professionals in D.C.?"
Prince: "It's amazing. When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."
Indeed there is a lot East European of blood in Russia's dark past but that was mostly
Stalin's blood. This author is placing an insincere equal sign between Putin and Stalin:
"I am unsettled by my fellow-Rightists who seem to have forgotten the murder and mayhem
unleashed by past Russian governments against Ukrainians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles and other
Central and Eastern Europeans."
Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own
sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need
to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons
like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems.
I would suggest two things:
-to the author: to read more history and write less, ideally throw away the pen.
-to TAC: do not pollute this place with such "authors".
Is it really so much Putin is loved by the right because of his social values? The Right in
America likely has very little contact with Russia. Airfare is quite expensive, and there
aren't really strong family ties to the region.
In contrast, the Left it appears has extensive contact with Russia. They are reporting on
persecution of gays and whatnot from there.
The Right I think is more anti-Left than pro-Russia.
This last year has been most revealing. People whom I once thought were principled
Conservatives have turned out, under pressure, to be bully-worshiping snobs.
It is quite devastating to see how many have fallen into the moral black hole that is
Trump_vs_deep_state, and consequently how many are embracing America's historic opponent.
That so many "conservatives" are willing to burn down the United States of America in
pursuit of their stated goal of destroying "libtards" and their leader, Hillary Satan, is
sufficient evidence their "conservatism" has as its sole principle, resentment of those they
think are laughing/sneering at them.
Gottfried assumes that all readers share the same view of Putin, that he is unabashed
authoritarian and that his action in the Ukraine were an invasion, a grab for territory; and
that in Syria, Putin's placement of Russian military force was a violation of Syria's
sovereignty and an attempt to grab power. He then reasons that their support for these
actions and Putin's other assumed comportment (racist, homophobic, etc.) is a misreading of
true conservative principles.
It makes for a nice argument, as there appear to be two ways of viewing Putin's behavior,
the correct one being a conservative rejection of racism, totalitarianism, xenophobia,
etc.
However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any
actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria
Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make
the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for
homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of
rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and
Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed.
There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria
and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the
alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity
amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie,
which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere.
To Paul Gottfried's credit, he ends with the excellent quote from Christopher ("The French,
Coming Apart" -- great, great analysis) Caldwell:
"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That
turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even
here."
In that same vein, commenter Dan Philips is 100% right: "In the grand scheme, Russia is
viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos über alles globalism."
Keep on impeding Davos, Mr. Putin. Don't stop! Keep impeding!
Apparently Prof. Gottfried is unaware of the tapped conversation between Victoria Nuland and
Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt where they are plotting who they will put in power after the U.S.
sponsored coup in the Ukraine. Nuland has admitted that the U.S. spent $5 billion to
destabilize Ukraine. U.S. meddling in on there countries' elections is more the norm for the
U.S. than it is for current day Russia.
For another viewpoint on Putin I suggest that TAC publish Dr. Boyd Cathey's article,
"Examining the Hatred of Putin.
Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria."
What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive
behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev
to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr
..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those
folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges.
Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian
border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression."
Quick question, how would Americans feel if the Russian navy was on patrol in the Gulf of
Mexico? We'd be livid as heck and rightly so. But it's fine for us to that to them. And, last
time I checked, Russia is any ally of Syria and was invited to be there by the Syrian govt.
The US is there against the wishes of the Syrian govt. But, you know, "Russian aggression."
The fact that the American left / GOP neocons have far more hatred for Putin than they ever
did for the communist Soviet Union speaks volumes. The fact that folks like the author of
this article hate Putin, while having absolutely zero problem with our number one ally, Saudi
Arabia also speaks volumes. This would be the same SA that is the world's number one exporter
of terrorism, that kills homosexuals for simply being homosexual and where women aren't
allowed to drive cars. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.
First off, I don't believe there is "persecution of gays" in Russia. What is there is the
not allowing of kids (kids for goodness sake!) to be taught the LGBT agenda. Those are two
totally different things. But for the sake of argument, let's say that there is some level of
"persecution of gays." Whatever that amounts to, unquestionably it doesn't include being
executed by the govt for being found to be gay. To find where that happens, one need look no
further than the country that all of the Russia haters seem to have no problems with: Saudi
Arabia. I'd love for you to explain to my why the same folks who hate Russia for "persecuting
gays" seem to have no problem with SA. Actually, don't bother. I know full well why this is
the case.
Listen man, don't start with a collection of bad deeds committed by the UDSSR or Putin in the
past because we can easily counter argue with a collection of bad deeds committed by the US
in the present. I don't care what Putin does, he's not my government. But currently he is the
only counter weight to the decay of the Western society. That's unless you turn to the
radical muslims. Hopefully, not our sole alternative in the future.
On a larger scale, keep pushing Russia away and China will welcome them. Then you'll have
the biggest country in the world allied with the most populous and hungry country in the
world; unlimited resources, natural and human. The gravitational force they will produce
will be difficult to resist unless they mess things up like we do in the US. But never bet on
your adversary to be stupider than you are.
Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's
assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with
the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al
Nusra.
As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian
invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist
Ukrainian State in the West.
The Russians would have been well within their right to do as
such given the existential threat that a hostile regime in Kiev poses to Russia itself.
Instead Russia only took the mostly ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula and supported pro
Russian rebels in Donbass. Last but not least lets recall another US backed incursion on
Russia's borders when Georgia decided in 2008 to launch an offensive against its breakaway
provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers in the process. Had
Russia been expansionist the Russians would've taken Tblisi overthrown Sakashvilli and placed
a pro-Russian government there. They did not. They repelled Georgian forces from South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and went home.
Think about had we been talking about dead American peacekeepers instead of Russian ones
and what Washington's response would be? Or Washington's response to a theoretical Russian
backed coup in Mexico? Russia has shown the utmost caution and restraint.
I can see how it might look like certain folks on the Right are politically "in love" with
Putin, but that's not really the case. In the current polarized socio-political framework,
where Russia has magically become "the enemy" (with no logic or reason behind that
assumption), anyone who does not want to force a showdown with Moscow is somehow "enamored"
with Putin. I consider myself more paleo-libertarian than paleo-conservative, but I will
freely admit that I don't want to live in Russia or have Putin anywhere near the reigns of
American power. But I also don't want nor see the need for any kind of conflict with the
Russians either.
Putin's Russia is a threat not because Putin is smart, clever, a former KGB agent that
learned to be a master chess player of world politics, from that job or because he does loves
his country and is trying to make his country a super power again to aid his people. He us
all of those things for sure.
And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of
the Russians can be understood.
Russia has interests, most of them in her near abroad. Putin has defended them, not always
nicely. Powers aren't always nice. See: US policy in Central America. Russia's regional
concerns aren't very important to the U.S.
Putin doesn't channel John Stuart Mill. Pity, that. But that's no reason to anathematize
him. He does have lots of nukes, and if either side errs, which is unlikely but not
impossible, catastrophe looms.
We have every reason to deal with the man soberly and without alarm or frissons of
"bromance."
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
ucgsblog says:
July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August,
but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:
"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity
is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when
we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the
Democratic National Committee.
___
"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not
talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic
Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.
___
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.
___
"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think
(the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's
lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.
___
"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making
that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment.
That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than
22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to
Hillary Clinton.
___
"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will
defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated
enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org
Civic Action.
___
"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage
and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're
a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs
and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper,
Ohio Democratic Party chairman.
___
"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters
need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent
or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.
!!!!!!-
The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia"
I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite
a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is
someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.
Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special
interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:
"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take
your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs,
student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the
issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere
with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"
Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned.
Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not
sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.
Yet another classic "Yascha about Russia... " propaganda theme variation (
Gessen style Russophobia). This time he is from Germany, though. Some people would do everything to earn a living.
Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment. ..."
"... Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more
thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation. ..."
"... Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in
the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis. ..."
"... so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something. ..."
"... Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph
Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/ ..."
"... The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies. ..."
"... One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same. ..."
"... Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev'
and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for
fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine . ..."
"... American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second
Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances,
finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have
the anti-Russia frenzy. ..."
"... That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier. ..."
The U.S. borg is vehemently trying to set up Russia as an enemy of the "west". Their anti-Russian propaganda has become part of
the campaign against U.S. President Trump who seeks détente with Russia. It requires intense efforts to denigrate the country, its
citizens and its leaders. Here is an example of how such propaganda is fabricated.
a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy
of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program.
Need a reminder of the human cost of dictatorship? All these are journalists who criticized Putin--and died under mysterious circumstances
The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is dully elected and not a dictator. The Russian Federation may not be
a "liberal democracy", but it is a democracy. The picture is old. It shows all Russian journalists who died during their work since
1991. Most of them died as war- or crime-correspondents and were not involved in politics at all. The death of most of those journalists
is not mysterious. Getting blown up by artillery during the wars in Chechnya, Yugoslavia or Ukraine is no mystery at all. Most of
these journalists never criticize Putin. They were already dead before Putin had any significant political role.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists 82 killed
Russian journalists since 1992, most of them died due to war or related to civil crimes or corruption. There are about 80 portraits
of journalists in the picture Mounk tweeted.
Two recognizable portraits and names therein are of Vlad Listyev, a TV entertainment producer
killed in 1995 over some controversy about lucrative
advertisement on public TV. Another portrait is of Dmitry Kholodov, killed in 1994 while investigating mafia connections within the
Russian military. At the time of their death Putin was a minor bureaucrat in Saint Petersburg. He did not gain power until he became
acting president at the end of 1999.
According to the CPJ numbers more Russian journalists
were killed during the eight years of Yeltsin's presidency (1992-2000) than in the 17 years of Putin's presidencies since. Mounk
claims "All these are journalists who criticized Putin ..." when more than half of them were already dead before Putin became known
and to power. It was during the time of the "
Harvard boys " who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven
"reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses. But there
is
no evidence , none at all, that Putin was ever involved in the decease of any journalist.
The first original publishing of the Mounk picture may have been as early
as 2009 . A piece on journalists remembrance
in Russia from 2014 already includes the pic. The reverse
image search
shows
that the picture has been has been used by several news-outlets since.
Every aspect of the Mounk tweet is a lie.
But Mounk's lies have by now been re-tweeted over 22,000 times. Many of those who see it will believe the claims he makes. They
will trust a widely publish Harvard academic. But the tweet, as well as nearly all other claims about Russia one sees in "western"
media, is pure propaganda. It is like the editorial in today's New York Times that
claims "Russia's oil-dependent economy [is] in trouble" while all Russian economic numbers turned positive and all indicators
point to accelerating growth
. It is fake news.
The anti-Russian propaganda campaign is now part of the "liberal" campaign against U.S. president Trump. It is
failing . Trump's support is steady if not increasing despite daily new revelation about his (non existent) "collusion with Russia"
and the (non existing) "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.
The purveyors of the propaganda stories are in despair. Each and every new fire they try to stoke dies off within a day or two.
The temptation then is to invent and push ever bigger lies about Trump, Russia and their non-existing connections.
The fake news Mounk spits out, and which disqualify him as an academic, is a sign of their accelerating panic.
Posted by b on July 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM |
Permalink
Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether
this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment.
Reminder these journalists and academics are so evil they actually want to repeal and replace the historic American nation with
a variety of mystery meat immigration (invasion).
Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal
media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading
just for its clarity and strength of argumentation.
Apart from the two you mentioned, you can make out several other names right off the bat, like Soviet journalist Alexander
Kaverznev who died in 1983 and Gennadiy Kurennoy who died together with colleague and fellow Gosteleradio SSSR journalist Viktor
Nogin in an armed ambush in Yugoslavia, during the war in 1991. Also visible is Andrey Pralnikov, who died in 1997 after finally
succumbing to radiation injuries he sustained in 1986 during his on-site coverage of the Chernobyl accident (he wrote a book about,
too).
In short, the portraits in that room are just Soviet and Russian journalists that have died on the job, regardless of how these
deaths occured, and it goes back to the 1980s at least. Quite obviously, of the actual violence-related deaths the vast majority
are from the 1990's, since there's been a rather dramatic downwards trend since Putin assumed office.
On his blog (I don't know if it's still up) Fedia Kriukov did an in-depth assessment of the cases post-2000 (i.e. the ones
actually "under Putin") and found that several had nothing to do with the journalists' professional activities, but were just
the results of them dealing with the criminal underworld themselves, some were the results of violence not targeting them but
targeting people they happened to be covering at the time (e.g. Scott in 2002 and Khasanov in 2004), some were just pure bad luck,
and out of the very few that actually were clear targeted killings it always had to do with organized crime (Domnikov, Politovskaya,
Klebnikov).
And this is where the aforementioned downwards trend comes in, because the only correlation between journalists being murdered
and the Putin period is strongly negative, and the reason is that the chief cause of investigative journalists being murdered
- rampant organized crime and corrupted local law enforcement and officials - has been tackled rather successfully since 2000.
Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications
and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility.
Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions
in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis.
I interpret PCR's words to at core mean that dishonesty, including evil omission, is now in the United States pervasive, normalized,
institutionalized, 'mandatory' for those who want to remain 'gainfully employed' or accepted by those institutions.
That famous quote often identified with Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is
the opposite side of that same coin.
This culture of bs is of course much broader than the US. We have the now famous confession by Udo Ulfkotte that much German
media is corrupt, CIA controlled, bought and paid for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lWKyRI10w
Another obscure but telling example: we have in Canada a book by Dr. Chopra titled 'Corrupt to the Core', detailing the situation
at Health Canada during Chopra's long employment there.
And the WHO has been a snake in the grass for example when it comes to radioactivity and human health, for two generations
allowing the nuclear powers that in effect act as censoring and misleading gatekeepers for material on that subject emanating
from the WHO. http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who
Perhaps I am engaging in wishfukl thinking but it seems to me we are seeing more and more signs of the breakdown of that systematic
and comprehensive dishonesty machine that has infiltrated so many institutions and required and rewarded dishonesty in so many
people? And along with that breakdown, the declining power of even so-called 'distinguished' institutions to wield power on behalf
of lies. The 'appeal to whatever authority' seems to be losing much of its previous punch.
The recent increase in disclosures and public awareness of institutionalized pedo-predation is an example. Trump's election
in the face of an unprecedented media and elite hostility, and extreme by same support for Clinton, to me suggests there is more
than just a leak in the disgusting dike sustaining dishonesty as default position.
And when it comes to Putin, his popularity not just in Russia has been sustained or even grown in the face of an extreme mass
media demonization effort.
The process puts me in mind of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where the wicked Witch is melting away, truth/water as deadly
nemesis.
so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something.
two are the choices here, either malice or incompetence. I want to believe it is merely because he is incurious and is getting
enough positive feedback from his echo chamber but fear he knows full well what he is doing.
What is the endgame? How will rotten relations with Russia improve the lives of US citizens? If not the general population,
then who stands to gain?
Hit these academic thugs where it hurts. Cut off their funding. The main reason they do this lying is because it pays. If the
only reward was doing the right thing or speaking truth, then this Harvard Hack wouldn't be bothered. So, no tenure for you buddy.
No nothing. Now go write your head off.
Thanks to the commenter above for sharing my post and for the nice words he had about it. People here may also be interested in
the 3-part series of posts I wrote about the attack in Khan Sheikhoun. The first part is
here and there are links to the other parts
at the bottom of the post. I think it's the most thorough discussion of this attack, but I also discuss other similar incidents.
I carefully document a shocking amount of bias and incompetence on the part of journalists. I also wrote a 4-part series of posts
on this whole Russia/Trump nonsense back in February, which I think is still very relevant today. The first part is
here .
thanks b... fascinating how a guy from harvard is oblivious to harvards historical role here in the phase of ripping off russia
during and after the transition in 1991... great quote from you here - "It was during the time of the "Harvard boys" who robbed
Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal
privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses." why would this dipshit Yascha
Mounk say all this? who pays him to lie? he is completely discredited here.. someone ought to send him a link to your article
so he can see what an ignoramus or con man (it is one of the other) he really is..
The Mythbusters motto was:
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."
Considering that Mythbusters were in the business of exposing and/or confirming popular myths & memes, the "overdoing" aspect
was typically confined to exploring the limits to which the counter argument might prove to be valid.
The derision which the program attracted from edu-phobic 'purists' was regularly discredited by fulsome praise from scientists
who pointed out that Mythbusters' exploration of the counter-argument demonstrated text-book faithfulness to The Scientific Method.
I'd love to hear what Mounk tells himself in order to anesthetise his conscience when embracing The Un-scientific Method to
spread infantile, un-researched crap in the name of Harvard, Science and Mounk?
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.
One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.
Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing
economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.
The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.
Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat
Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.
One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.
Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing
economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.
The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.
Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.
Meanwhile the list of those killed directly by the USG in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Syria.
Or indirectly by arming the murderers of the Yemeni, Ukraine and on and on and on, whose names we don't and may never know. "Their
name is Legion". He's a bullshit academic who should participate in the wars he wants others to fight to prove 'his theory'..
He can put his own skin in the game.
It is worth noting that 10 journalists and media persons have been killed in the Ukraine since the glorious revolution in 2014
against only 2 in Russia over the same period. This of cause is of zero interest to the western MSM.
The WSJ held an interview with Peter W. Smith and published an article by Shane Harris on June 29 titled "GOP Operative Sought
Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn".
Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the
alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after
having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine .
How Harvard Lost Russia . The best and brightest of America's premier university came to Moscow in the 1990s to teach Russians how to be capitalists.
This is the inside story of how their efforts led to scandal and disgrace.
American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second
Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such
circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival.
That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy.
It'll fail because Russia is militarily unassailable, and because continuing with the campaign is not only not helping with
the domestic politics, but is scrambling America's geopolitical calculations. It's a geopolitical dead-end.
All in all, what we are seeing in the US is a full-scale panic of the establishment, with the MSM arm simply putting it all
out there, no matter how preposterous or inaccurate, in a desperate bid to salvage something that is fundamentally unsalvageable.
That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier.
@ 23 mh505... thanks.. that is a good link for getting a better understanding.. i wonder how Yascha Mounk perceives all this?
surely he can't be ignorant of it.. is someone paying him for his propaganda? what a waste of money it is!!!
So, going back to the photo. There are 8 chairs/portraits in each row, and about 10 rows, so that's roughly 80 people affiliated
with journalism that have died one way or another that might or might not be connected to their work, in 37 years (if we just
assume it starts at 1980, seeing as there is a 1983 case in direct view...)
Considering that we clearly have journalists that have died while reporting from combat zones (see my earlier comment) as well
as journalists that have died due to injuries received while reporting from dangerous "civilian" situations, it all comes across
as pretty unremarkable.
Mind you, between 1980 and 1991, the USSR was a country of nearly 300 million people, and the Russian Federation has been hovering
in the 140-150 ballpark since 1991.
Mind you, that the USSR was getting increasingly lawless towards the end, and pretty much all successor states were in a state
of anarchy for at least a couple of years past the Soviet demise (some longer than others, Russia longer than most thanks to Yeltsin
and the total carnage that the West supported)
Mind you that multiple armed conflicts occured during this time, both domestically (Chechnya 1 and 2 for instance, in which
a number of journalists were injured or killed) and in the near-abroad (the Georgian/Abkhazian/Ossetian/Ajaran conflicts, the
Azeri-Armenian conflicts, the numerous Central Asian conflicts, the the brief Moldovan warm, the Yugoslav wars etc)
...All things considered, 80 journalists dead over all this time is nothing compared to say Mexico. And Russia's also known
to have way more journalists per capita than most countries, which further adds to how underwhelming these statistics really are.
The final nail in the coffin is, of course, that all these scary statistics sank like a rock after Putin took office and Russia
has never been as peaceful, free and civilized as it is right now. But we've been through that.
Somebody should compile all the relevant information on this and make a glossy report, to be honest. I mean, it's all out there,
it's just that they get away with outright lying about it because people don't bother doing any research on their own and they
know it.
You can be entirely certain that the guy does not believe his own drivel. But: he may lose his job otherwise, which some would
consider attenuating circumstances.
To me, he is not the worst among those Harvard boys. A hypocrite of a much higher magnitude has to be Jeffrey Sachs, who was
among the most diligent drivers behind the destruction of post-communist Russia; yet today acts as if he never was even there.
A Saulus turned Paulus, except no atonement in any way
Did a Google News search on Yascha Mounk.
First, his publicity is based on some fairly bogus research on "millenials abandoning democracy". The WaPo ran a decent article
discrediting it, worth noting since the guy seems to have a taste for spinning data for political reasons:
. . .scary-chart-about-the-future-of-democracy-is-pretty-misleading/
Second, he calls for a "Cold War mentality", putting him in with the likes of Clinton & McCain & Bush-Cheney, Gary Kasparov, etc.
It's pretty boilerplate neocon/neolib thinking, here's a taste:
It's time to return to a Cold War mentality
By Yascha Mounk, Slate Mar 2017
Two years ago, when Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned political dissident, began to warn that Vladimir Putin sought
to undermine liberal democracy!not only in neighboring countries, but all over the West!he was widely written off as a crank.
After Russia managed to hack the servers of the Democratic National Committee and spread fake news on an industrial scale,
his warnings were finally recognized as all too prescient. But it is only over the past weeks, as journalists around the world
have broken dozens of stories about Russian meddling in the democratic process, that the sheer scale of this effort has become
apparent.
The last time there was such a massive PR push inside the USA on a foreign policy issue was during the 2002-2003 runup to the
Iraq invasion, based on an equally bogus story as the Russia bogeyman one, i.e. Iraqi WMDs.
The fact is, a multipolar world without "American exceptionalism" will be a better deal for the average American citizen, if
not for the Washington circle of trough-feeders. This is a basic truth that the neoliberal empire-builders just can't handle.
Of course, the big academic institutions are on board with endless military-industrial budgets, NATO expansion, regime change.
Just as academic institutions in the old Soviet Union always went along with Central Committee PR lines.
On the other hand, on domestic policy? If you look into details, Clinton and Trump are not so different here - basically it's
corporate rule, Trump and Clinton have similar numbers of Goldman Sachs people on their teams. Equally disastrous policies on
the fundamentals like infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, etc. We'd be better off just giving our tax dollars to China to have
them rebuild our infrastructure, it's that pitiful.
Maybe Trump should just spend the next four years abroad, running around with world leaders having a good time, ignoring all
the neoliberal establishment pleas for regime changes and NATO wars, completely ignoring the domestic situation? The corrupt federal
government in Washington can fight itself to death, and the states can run domestic policy instead?
"... War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred. ..."
"... Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out. ..."
Several months ago you had a video of a group of young Russian women singing a Russian folk
song acapella (Youtube, Russian Girls Sing Lube) which left a lasting impression on me. For the
last several days I have been exploring Russian folk music for the sake of getting an idea of
what these people are like. My observations are below with a link to a video by a Russian folk
music group.
The point is people who have their noses twisted out of joint over the defeat of a horribly
corrupt presidential candidate would choose to see people such as those I have seen in the
Russian folk music videos vaporized. We have become a hideous country.
War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our
hatred.
This text is from my facebook posting which also has a link to the folk music video.
I have been taking time recently to find some information on the Russian people since the
American political system seems so dedicated to make war against Russia.
I have been captivated by their folk music and the love they put into it. Much of it has
been acapella and beautiful. In all of those presentations I got the sense that each singer
considered the song more important than their individual talent, and the sound of the group the
tribute to the song.
In watching tho se videos I came to the impression that the Russian people are happy, proud
and strong. This impression speaks highly of their character, as it was within the lifetime of
most Americans that the Russian system collapsed and those people had the duty to rebuild their
economy, culture, and faith from the rubble left by Soviet Communism. It seems to me they have
done it.
The main point here is a war with Russia is a war on these courageous, warm, and resilient
people. I challenge anybody who is upset with what happened in the election last November to
watch any of these videos and ask yourself if you have ever been as happy as the people that
are in them. I don't believe any of them care who is President of the United States or probably
that Vladimir Putin is the leader of their country. After all, Putin said that Russia spans 11
time zones an most Russians live life without worrying about the government.
Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election,
please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to
prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what
you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the
Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no
better reason than you don't like how an election turned out.
While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents
change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at
the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO
led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within
the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former
republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter,
these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas
pipeline corridors.
US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination
with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union
and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment
of millions of people.
The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital
to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block
countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former
Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and
corrupt political practices.
In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region
extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.
The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence.
The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military
bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999,
there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic
frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.
The Next Phase of the War
The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war".
The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended
to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched
the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter
2004)
This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes
a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.
The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between
Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes
a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling
to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.
This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build
a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial
domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland,
Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.
In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well,
Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are
building up in Turkey.
So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean
to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.
The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons
Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received
congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold
War era.
The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads
are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated
quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are
attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the
World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.
Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services
Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used
in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima
bomb".
Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret
meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held
at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on
August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.
The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It
is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar
profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a
view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."
Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".
This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in
"conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.
In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation
of "defensive" nuclear weapons.
The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same
order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.
While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres,
tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded
toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another
unidentified form of uranium contamination:
"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented
concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than
in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net
The Planning of War
The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National
Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war
is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.
In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House,
the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under
the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."
The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the
Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes
role in the formulation of US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:
"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".
This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters
in different regions of the World.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President
Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward
bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of
the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of
a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)
The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"
The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11,
the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would
serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
)
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11
attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by
David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and
the nations will accept the New World Order."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.
" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the
key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan
war (1979-1989).
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence
planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003)
to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military
rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html
).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world
- it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning
at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's
"roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal
agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political
turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in
US political, social and institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to
unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately
with a view to "preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger
mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used
as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional
under the facade of a bogus democracy.
War Propaganda
In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it
was labeled by its critics:
"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant
stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across
the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)
And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome"
media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force
Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato,
op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation
campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid
here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)
A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively
involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts
of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration
of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping".
The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"--
is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine
and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's
propaganda campaign.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense"
against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America
will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such
attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons
of mass destruction ( )
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct
violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses
on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these
losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient
threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction-
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12
(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
)
To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication"
of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to
"State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the
fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.
In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched
to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda,
which was then fed into the news chain.
In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland'
continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on
a daily basis across the news tabloids.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld
as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:
1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.
2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC
What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel
of military planning.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated
"warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which
provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the
implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required,
in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American
Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is
an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start
a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods",
to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist
Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty
lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See
Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html
).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks,
including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations),
which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the
very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact
with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed?
What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah
Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA
and Australian intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India
and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html
, Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and
the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul
Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,
Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html
)
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called
'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance,
prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S.
forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations.
Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of
terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training
of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled
to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence
proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda
in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee
of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives,
bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.
In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official
statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda
operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See
Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003,
Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
)
The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely
a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit
on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian
Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian
authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network
were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which
was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.
In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before
9/11.
Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization
is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda".
This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation
of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding
of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military
intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed
by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial
in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support
these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA
September 11
While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the
sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence
reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant
network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged
by Washington's mainstream think tanks.
Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually
accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different
points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.
Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during
the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan
Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,
Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html
)
Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up.
The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies
and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation,
rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research
on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)
The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed
from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the
ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and
Globalization, op.cit.)
Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official
visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI,
who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number
of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)
The Antiwar Movement
A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It
must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their
propaganda campaign.
The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world,
should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war
committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately
through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach
out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions
of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.
This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political
complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.
Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal
act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA
and September 11:
"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."
Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must
also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly
stand behind the military and political actors.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the
White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas
oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly
behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment,
they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can
be brought to office.
Criminalization of the State
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of
authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.
In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals
in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world
domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State",
which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.
Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military,
the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts,
but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies
of the State."
More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic
and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces
"free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with
the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and
defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental
and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological
consensus and commitment to the New World Order.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production
of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism
and disarm financial markets.
The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels,
in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses,
professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.
The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement.
People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective
understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.
The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism
unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between
and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social
movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major
regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting
world peace.
The intelligence and
military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's
government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is
not engaging with Putin.
The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain
told an interviewer
that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results
in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves
to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate
Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.
Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize"
leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages.
Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an
agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our
British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.
McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for
election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims
that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not
provide hard evidence.
Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this
community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the
intelligence community, James Clapper,
lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.
Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that
Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's
elections all the time. President Obama called on
British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA
appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.
Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage
"has few parallels" according to the
CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy
interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.
Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media
group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT
is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are
neither new nor unique to Russia.
Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been
around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and
former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges
for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network
"is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."
To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and
continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited
China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with
Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to
death for adultery.
It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why
our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike
Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard,
this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't
benefit from international conflicts.
When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based
ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may
have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed
a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.
As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some
unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions
were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the
leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect
their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are
civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.
Russia also provided intelligence
that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from
bombing the Boston marathon.
Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks
conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative
contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the
rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and
Somalia.
Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a
national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford.
And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded
in foreign hostilities.
Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's
condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw
from Iraq.
But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their
anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to
drive a wedge between the US and Russia.
Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed
sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include
targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal
democracy.
Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and
companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill,
S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western
Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian
Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible
uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.
Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never
advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy
promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many
self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup
to the Iraq War.
Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has
not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.
"... "Is Russia an enemy of the United States?" NBC's Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, "Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug." ..."
"... "Why Russia is a Hostile Power" is the title of today's editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city: "Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy." ..."
"... Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of "suicidal nationalism" for contemplating independence from Russia. ..."
"... As for favoring "repression over democracy," would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history? ..."
"... Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don't bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally -- kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia. ..."
"... When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place. ..."
"... Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War. ..."
"... Putin's Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years. ..."
"... Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. ..."
"... Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime. ..."
"... Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med? ..."
"... As big a clown as Trump is, just about everybody else in DC are proving to be even bigger clowns. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations. ..."
"... Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the Beltway. The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is hypocritical and just disgusting. ..."
"... The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump and pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's all baloney. ..."
"... The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place. ..."
"... After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and started to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into chaos. ..."
"... Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging mud at other heads of state! ..."
"Is Russia an enemy of the United States?" NBC's Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied
the runner-up for the GOP nomination, "Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB
thug."
To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained
an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered "treason."
Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.
Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?
"Why Russia is a Hostile Power" is the title of today's editorial in The Washington Post
that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital
city: "Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values.
He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and
repression over democracy."
Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill
did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet
Union.
When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S.
president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in
1945.
Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of "suicidal nationalism" for contemplating
independence from Russia.
When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?
As for supporting "corruption over transparency," ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili
resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.
As for favoring "repression over democracy," would that not apply to our NATO ally President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our
Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen.
Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?
The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under
the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia's elites.
Yet China's lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for
championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room.
Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the
dying man go.
Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don't bet on it. Too much trade.
Congress will do what comes naturally -- kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new
sanctions on Russia.
What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst
called "as bad as Hitler"?
During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most
blood-soaked regime of the century.
When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15
nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of
the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.
Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember
from the worst days of the Cold War.
Putin's Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could
swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.
Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South
Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.
Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in
Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.
Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent
allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to
support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the
Med?
Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as
McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of
the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations.
Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the
Beltway. The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is
hypocritical and just disgusting.
The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump
and pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin
reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's
all baloney.
The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the
criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an
unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his
Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place.
After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and
started to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in
international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest
disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into
chaos.
Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging
mud at other heads of state!
While I do think that property rights are often roadkill of the Russian Oligarchic and
State 4x4s, there seem to be heard the loud banging sounds of construction behind the
Magnitsky act.
Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as
McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of
the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations.
Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the Beltway.
The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is hypocritical
and just disgusting.
The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump and
pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin
reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's
all baloney.
The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the
criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an
unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his
Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place.
After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and started
to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in
international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest
disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into
chaos.
Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging mud at
other heads of state!
Well said.
btw: US has been meddling – and then some – in foreign elections for
decades.
The one that immediately comes to mind is Operation Ajax (1953), the combined US & UK
coup against the _democratically_ elected Iranian government of Mosaddegh .
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
Russia's role in Trump's election has led to a boom in Putinology. But do
all these theories say more about us than Putin?
Vladimir Putin,
you may have noticed, is everywhere. He has soldiers in Ukraine and Syria,
troublemakers in the Baltics and Finland, and a hand in elections from the Czech
Republic to France to the United States. And he is in the media. Not a day goes by
without a big new article on "
Putin's
Revenge
", "
The
Secret Source of Putin's Evil
", or "10 Reasons Why Vladimir Putin Is a
Terrible Human Being".
Putin's recent ubiquity has brought great prominence to
the practice of Putinology. This enterprise – the production of commentary and
analysis about Putin and his motivations, based on necessarily partial, incomplete
and sometimes entirely false information – has existed as a distinct intellectual
industry for over a decade. It kicked into high gear after the Russian invasion of
Crimea in 2014, but in the past few months, as allegations of Russian meddling in
the election of President Donald Trump have come to dominate the news, Putinology
has outdone itself. At no time in history have more people with less knowledge,
and greater outrage, opined on the subject of Russia's president. You might say
that the reports of Trump's golden showers in a Moscow hotel room have consecrated
a golden age – for Putinology.
And what does Putinology tell us? It turns out that it has produced seven
distinct hypotheses about Putin. None of them is entirely wrong, but then none of
them is entirely right (apart from No 7). Taken together, they tell us as much
about ourselves as about Putin. They paint a portrait of an intellectual class –
our own – on the brink of a nervous breakdown. But let's take them in order.
Theory 1: Putin is a genius
It's simple: while the world is playing checkers, Putin is playing chess. He
seized Crimea from the Ukrainians with barely a shot fired; he got back Yalta, the
favoured beach resort of Chekhov and the tsars, and all he faced as punishment
were some minor sanctions. He intervened on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria,
after the US, Turkey and the Saudis spent years supporting the rebels, and in
short order turned the tide of the war. He has been instrumental in undermining
the pro-EU consensus, financing the Eurosceptic right – and, where convenient, the
Eurosceptic left – aiming apparently to dismantle the postwar international order
and replace it with a series of bilateral transactional relationships in which
Russia
can, for the most part, be the senior partner.
Finally, he interfered in the US election, the election for the most powerful
post in the world, and managed to get his man in the White House. And what were
the consequences? A few diplomats expelled from the United States is a small price
to pay for a potential end to US sanctions, a renewal of economic ties and joint
oil-drilling in the Russian Arctic, and the de facto acknowledgment of Crimea as
part of the Russian Federation.
Domestically, Putin has managed to silence or co‑opt almost all opposition. The
liberals squabble among themselves on Facebook and emigrate; the far right, which
hates Putin for his refusal to go full fascist and, for example, take Kiev, is
kept on a tight leash; and the democratic socialist left, hobbled by the massive
pseudo-left authoritarian Communist Party of the Russian Federation, is so tiny
Putin can hardly even see it (and he has many eyes).
Putin during his first two terms enjoyed immense luck in the form of a
worldwide commodities boom, but he could have blown that luck. Instead, he
husbanded it, and Russia grew rich. Now the closest thing to a rival to Putin
within his inner circle is his prime minister, the pudgy and diminutive Dmitry
Medvedev, who has distinguished himself primarily as a man who enjoys playing with
his iPad. The lone domestic politician who has mounted a plausible threat to Putin
is Alexei Navalny, a talented Moscow-based digital populist of variable political
convictions, whom the Kremlin
is keeping busy with various criminal charges and house arrests
.
Putin-as-evil-genius is, unquestionably, the primary theoretical view in the
west of the Russian president, whether by his multitude of critics or his
smattering of admirers. Those who take a more jaundiced view of Putin's political,
intellectual, and military capabilities – President Barack Obama, for one – are
treated as naive, soft on Putin: the sort of people who play checkers, not chess.
Meanwhile, most Russian observers of Putin tend to be surprised at the western awe
of his overwhelming strategic prowess. Garry Kasparov, for example, the great
chess champion and not-so-great opposition politician, finds the whole thing
insulting to chess.
In any case, one does wonder about this genius business. Was it really worth
international isolation, increasingly bothersome sanctions and the eternal enmity
of the Ukrainian people to seize a beloved but past-its-prime resort area that
Russians don't even really visit any more? There was fear that the post-Maidan
government of Ukraine might cancel the lease on the large Russian naval port in
Sevastopol, but surely a genius might have handled the threat through something
short of seizing the entire peninsula?
As for Syria, Putin may bask for now in the glory of rescuing the Assad regime,
but who will celebrate this glory with him? Certainly not Sunni Muslims, whom
Assad has been slaughtering – some of those who survive will soon return to their
homes in the Caucasus and Central Asia, newly angry at the Russian bear. As for
the disintegration of the EU, which Putin seems to seek almost above all else, is
this really a winning formula for Russia? The "Hungarian Putin", Viktor Orbán, is
so far well-disposed toward Russia, but what we might call the Polish Putins of
the Law and Justice party are committed Russophobes. And, as one shrewd
commentator has pointed out, should Putin ever succeed in installing a rightwing
nationalist leader in neighbouring Germany, that German Putin may well decide to
go to war with the original Putin, as German Putins have always tended to do in
the past.
And even our new American Putin, Donald J Trump, may
->
not be as much of a boon to Russia
as he seems at first glance. For one thing,
Trump's apparent romance with the Russian president has ignited a storm of
Russophobia in the US, the like of which has not been seen since the early 1980s.
For another, Trump is a fool. It is not the way of genius to hitch your wagon to a
fool.
On the domestic front, Putin's genius now seems equally suspect. In 2011, he
made the momentous decision to return to the presidency after ceding it for four
years to Medvedev. The decision, announced in a humiliating manner by Medvedev
himself, was soon followed by the
largest protests in Moscow
since the early 1990s. Putin was impressive in
waiting the protests out. He did not make the mistake that
Viktor Yanukovych
made two years later in Ukraine by first overreacting and
then, perhaps, underreacting to the situation. Instead, Putin let the protests
lose steam and then picked off the protest leaders one by one with surreptitiously
videotaped provocations and phony criminal charges, while Moscow itself underwent
a kind of urban renaissance, complete with public parks and bike lanes, to assuage
some of the anger of the creative class. But Putin did nothing to address the
substance of the criticism coming from the opposition – that his political regime
was corrupt, unresponsive, and that it had no vision. Instead, with the
invasion of Ukraine
and the subsequent nationalist mobilisation, he doubled
down on the worst aspects of his reign.
Had Putin retired after 2008, as he said he would, and become a grand old man
of Russian politics, there would have been statues built to him throughout the
country. Under him, Russia had emerged from the chaos of the 1990s into a relative
stability and prosperity. Now, however, with low oil prices, a collapsed rouble,
risible counter-sanctions in place on European cheese, and a demoralised
opposition, it is hard to imagine an end to the Putin era that is not violent, and
whose violence does not lead to more violence. If this is genius, then it is of a
very peculiar kind.
Theory 2: Putin is a nothing
The first sight many Russians got of
Vladimir Putin
was on New Year's Eve, 1999, when in a remarkable turn of
events, a clearly ailing Boris Yeltsin, with six months left in his term, used his
traditional televised end-of-year address to announce that he was resigning the
presidency and handing the reins to his recently appointed, younger and more
energetic prime minister.
Then Putin came on. The effect was startling. Yeltsin had looked confused and
sickly. His speech was so slurred that he was hard to understand. He sat bolt
upright as if wearing a brace. But this? This homunculus? Putin was tiny compared
to Yeltsin, and though younger and healthier, he nonetheless managed to more
closely resemble death. He spoke for a few minutes, promising on the one hand to
keep Russian democracy strong, but on the other hand issuing various warnings to
those who would threaten Russia – an incongruous performance. Many people didn't
think it was likely that Putin would last very long in this august seat. For all
his faults, Yeltsin was at least a someone: tall, with a booming voice, a former
member of the Soviet Politburo. Whereas Putin? He was, people suddenly scrambled
to learn, merely a colonel in the KGB. He had been sent abroad, but only barely –
to the East German backwater of Dresden. He was short and had a squeaky voice and
his hair was thinning. He was a nonentity even among the nonentities who remained
after Yeltsin's perpetual clearing-out of his cabinets.
In a world where most people are convinced that Putin is a genius, this theory
of Putin as a nobody deserves a second look. There really is an everyman quality
to Putin. One of my favourite observations about him comes from a man who knew him
back in St Petersburg in the 1990s. The man became a whistleblower after the
successful medical supplies company he ran was asked, not long after Putin became
president, to divert a portion of its earnings into the fund for "Putin's Palace",
a huge complex going up on the Black Sea. But he had an interesting take on the
president as he had known him before,
as he told the British journalist Ben Judah
:
He was an absolutely average man. His voice was average not tough, not
high. He had an average personality average intelligence, not especially high
intelligence. You could go out the door and find thousands and thousands of
people in Russia, all of them just like Putin.
This can't be entirely right: Putin was above average in at least a few
respects (he was the judo champion of Leningrad, for one). But there is insight in
these words. It was part of Putin's charm that he didn't stand out. During his
first interviews in office he stressed how much of a regular guy he was, how he
had struggled financially during the 1990s, how much tough luck he'd had. He knew
all the same jokes, had listened to all the same music and seen all the same
movies, as everyone else of his generation. It is a testament to the power of
Soviet culture, to both its egalitarianism and its limitations, that when Putin
mentioned a line from a quasi-dissident song or movie of the 1960s or 1970s,
almost everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. This did not put him out
of the mainstream. He was the unremarkable only child of an unremarkable working
family from Leningrad. It was almost as if the Soviet Union had coughed up, from
the great mass of its humanity, this average exemplar, with his average
aggressiveness, his average ignorance, his average nostalgia for the way things
were.
Accounts of Putin's early years in office tend to confirm that he was something
less than a colossus. He was impressed by the might of the American empire and
awed by George W Bush. He was aware, too, of how limited his domestic power was.
Russian politics during the Yeltsin era had been dominated by a small group of
oligarchs, oil and banking titans with their own private armies. These were led
not by short, skinny former colonels like Putin, but by barrel-chested former
generals of the Interior Ministry and KGB. What's more, some of the oligarchs were
brilliant strategists – they had survived the ruthless 1990s and emerged
victorious, while Putin had muddled along as the corrupt deputy to a one-term
mayor. Putin's early popularity was based on his tough attitude towards Chechens
and oligarchs. He had succeeded in levelling Chechnya, but could he really win in
a showdown with the oligarchs? He had no idea.
In 2003, in one of the main turning-points of his reign, it took Putin months
to work up the nerve
to arrest Mikhail Khodorkovsky
, the country's richest man. But then he did it,
and it worked. No people rose up in the streets to defend the fallen oligarch, no
secret armies emerged from the forests. Putin got away with it, and he would get
away with much more. He would grow into his office. Today you see tiny Putin
walking through the cavernous chambers of the Kremlin during official ceremonies,
and clearly his stature has not risen to the grandeur of his surroundings. But
time itself has done its work. When he meets Trump, it will be his fourth US
president. Numerous British prime ministers have left office, along with two
French presidents and a German chancellor (whom, in a less than proud moment for
the German people, Putin later hired). Putin remains. A kind of stature accrues to
him just from surviving. A middling stature.
Theory 3: Putin had a stroke
This early classic of Putinology was popularised in a 2005 Atlantic article
titled "
The
Accidental Autocrat
", which cited the work of a "behavioural research fellow"
at the Naval War College in Rhode Island named Brenda L Connors. After studying
film of Putin's movements, Connors concluded that he had a debilitating and likely
congenital neurological deficiency, possibly caused by a stroke in utero, which
prevented him from having full use of the right side of his body – which is why
his left arm swings more than his right when he walks. Connors told the Atlantic
that it was unlikely that Putin had ever crawled as an infant and that he still
moves with his entire body, "in a head-to-tail pattern, like a fish or a reptile".
The explanatory power of this hypothesis in terms of predicting whether Putin
will, for example, invade Belarus, is low, but nonetheless it is haunting. One
pictures little fish-like Putin moving through the world of men and women who have
use of both sides of their bodies, and he, without that ability, feeling sad.
Theory 4: Putin is a KGB agent
After his famous first meeting with Putin, the newly elected President George W
Bush declared at a press conference that he had looked into the Russian's eyes and
seen his soul. His advisers were mortified. "I visibly stiffened," national
security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in her memoirs. Secretary of state Colin
Powell pulled his president aside. "You may have seen all that" in his eyes,
Powell told W, "but I still look in his eyes and I see K-G-B. Remember," he added
ominously, "there's a reason he's fluent in German." Vice President Dick Cheney
felt the same way: Every time he saw Putin, he told people, "I think KGB, KGB,
KGB."
And ever since then, it's been the same way. Whenever Putin tried to be nice to
someone, it was because he was a KGB agent, manipulating them. And whenever he was
mean – as when he introduced a dog-fearing Angela Merkel to his black labrador
retriever Connie – this, too, was because he was a KGB agent, angling for
psychological advantage.
That the KGB formed the bulk of Putin's professional experience is beyond doubt
– he worked there from the day he graduated college in 1974 until at least August
1991. And, what is more, the KGB was not just a company, but a university: at the
Higher School of the KGB, in Moscow, which Putin attended, young agents took
university-level classes. It was important, the KGB higher-ups believed, that the
cadres understand the world they were being trained to subvert and manipulate. It
is entirely likely that Putin kept in touch with his former KGB associates after
1991, while serving in the St Petersburg mayor's office. And it is true that Putin
has brought many of his former KGB colleagues with him to the highest levels of
government.
And yet I can't help but find the KGB hypothesis unsatisfying. When people such
as Rice and Powell and Cheney speak of Putin's KGB past, they are suggesting that
he treats politics as essentially a contest in manipulation. People are either his
agents, whom he is running, or his adversaries, whom he is trying to weaken. This
is a ruthless worldview, but don't many people in politics act this way? Aren't
there a lot of bullies who divide people into those they can control and those
they can't? Isn't that how Dick Cheney operated, for example? That doesn't make it
an acceptable way to go through the world. It just doesn't seem particularly
unique to the KGB.
But the KGB label has other uses in western mouths. It is synecdoche for the
Soviet Union, and Putin-as-Soviet-revanchist, with a hammer in one hand and a
sickle in the other, is one of his chief avatars in the western press. What
exactly is meant by this? Certainly not that anyone thinks Putin supports a
historic union of the proletariat (the hammer) and the peasantry (the sickle), nor
that he is an actual communist who wants to expropriate the bourgeoisie. Rather
the USSR is meant here in its aspect as an aggressive imperial power that occupied
half of eastern
Europe
. And it is true that Putin seems to feel about the countries on the
Russian periphery that they are not full countries with rights and sovereignty –
it's fair to say he is an imperialist. What is unfair (to the Soviet Union,
really) is to suggest that his imperialism is specifically Soviet in nature. The
Soviets did not invent imperialism; the Russian Empire, for example, whose basic
geography the Soviets managed to keep intact, did not become an empire by
not
conquering native Arctic peoples, prosecuting brutal decades-long wars in the
Caucasus, and lopping off parts of Poland. Putin is a Russian imperialist, full
stop.
But finally, of course, there is a moral connotation to saying that someone is
"KGB", because the Soviet KGB carried out assassinations, harassed and imprisoned
dissidents, and was one of the pioneers of what came to be known as fake news. But
the idea that anyone who walked its halls was pure evil is as blinkered as the
KGB's own idea of itself as the one uncorrupted, "professional" institution in
late Soviet life.
The KGB was a giant organisation – in the 1980s it employed hundreds of
thousands of people. After it started shedding staff in the 1990s, we learned that
KGB agents came in all shapes and sizes. There was Philipp Bobkov, for example,
who once persecuted Soviet dissidents, but who after the Soviet Union's collapse
became an employee of the media oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky and a thoughtful
commentator on the old KGB. Other KGB agents went into the private sector as
surveillance specialists or hired assassins. There were KGB agents who stayed on
with the FSB and tried to fight organised crime. There were KGB agents who stayed
on with the FSB and used their positions to abet organised crime, to murder
innocent citizens, and to amass small private fortunes. There were former KGB
agents who fought bravely in Chechnya and there were former KGB agents who
committed war crimes there. There was Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent turned
FSB agent who was ordered by his corrupt superiors to kill the oligarch Boris
Berezovsky, and who instead of doing so went public. Eventually in fear for his
life he fled the country, settling in London where he cooperated with western
intelligence agencies and published numerous anti-Putin broadsides. Years later,
he was poisoned by a large dose of Polonium-210
in London by another former
KGB agent, Andrei Lugovoi.
Theory 5: Putin is a killer
Though I now live in New York, I was born in Russia and sometimes write about
Russia. This means that people often share their opinions of Putin with me. I
remember one evening in March 2006, when I was introduced to a well-known French
photographer. Upon learning that I was Russian, she said, "Pou-tine?" The French
pronunciation was emasculating to the Russian President, making him sound like
those Canadian french fries with gravy on them. "Pou-tine," said the photographer,
"is a stone-cold killer."
I had heard this opinion before from some Russian oppositionists, but it was
the first time I had encountered it in New York. Perhaps because the photographer
was French, or perhaps because she was a photographer, the opinion struck me as
primarily aesthetic: Putin was a killer because of his cold, bloodless face, his
expressionless eyes, his refusal to smile. A few months later, Litvinenko was
poisoned in London, and the journalist
Anna Politkovskaya
was shot while returning home with some groceries in
downtown Moscow. The view that Putin was a killer became much more widespread.
I have no wish to dispute that characterisation here. Putin has launched
violent, deadly wars against Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, and I agree with the
recent British inquiry that concluded that Putin "probably" approved of the
assassination of Litvinenko. But the launching of aggressive wars and the killing
of a former operative who has defected are hardly the sort of thing that will get
you kicked out of the international community.
No, there is another sense in which Putin is believed to be a murderer; it was
the subject of much discussion in the United States during the strange rise of
Donald Trump. During the Republican primaries, the conservative TV host Joe
Scarborough, otherwise famously cosy with Trump, pressed the candidate about his
sympathies for Putin – who, in Scarborough's words, "kills journalists and
political opponents". A few days later, on a more prominent Sunday-morning
politics programme, the former White House adviser George Stephanopoulos
challenged Trump again. When Trump protested that "nobody's proven that he's
killed anybody, as far as I'm concerned", Stephanopoulos confidently replied:
"There have been many allegations that he was behind the killing of Anna
Politkovskaya." Trump parried as best he could. But the issue obviously hasn't
gone away. In an interview before the Super Bowl in early February, Trump was
confronted by Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly. "Putin's a killer," said O'Reilly, to
which Trump infamously (though accurately) responded, "There are a lot of killers.
We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?"
"I don't know of any government leaders that are killers," said O'Reilly. He
did not mean that he didn't know of any government leaders who had ordered the
invasion of Iraq or who had signed off on dozens of drone strikes or shoot-to-kill
missions such as the one that ended the life of Osama bin Laden. He meant that he
didn't know of any leaders who went around killing regular folks.
The trouble with this accusation is not that it is false, but that, like most
Putinology, it is sloppy. When most people accuse Putin of killing "journalists
and political opponents", they mean Politkovskaya, killed in 2006, and the
opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, killed in 2015.
Allegations that Putin was behind the killing of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov do
exist – but very few people with knowledge of the cases believe them. What they do
believe is that Politkovskaya and Nemtsov were killed by associates of
Ramzan Kadyrov
, the violent dictator of Chechnya. In the Nemtsov case, the
evidence for the involvement of people close to Kadyrov is overwhelming. In the
Politkovskaya case, it is more circumstantial (and with Politkovskaya there is
considerable evidence of other efforts to harm her, including an earlier poisoning
attempt that looked more like a government operation), but still the most likely
scenario.
And yet Kadyrov's involvement does not absolve Putin, because Kadyrov works for
Putin. It has been widely reported that Putin was baffled and angry over the
Nemtsov killing and refused for weeks to take Kadyrov's phone calls. On the other
hand, here we are almost two years later, and Kadyrov is still in charge of
Chechnya. He was put there by Putin. So if Putin did not directly order these
killings – and, again, it is the consensus view among most journalists and
analysts that he did not – he nonetheless continues to work with and support those
who did.
With Putin the killer, we reach something like Putinology's conceptual blind
spot. What we seem to be dealing with, in Russia, is neither a failed state, where
the government has no power, nor a totalitarian state, where it has all the power,
but something in between. Putin does not order killings, and yet killings happen.
Putin ordered the takeover of Crimea, but, as best as anyone can tell, he seems
not
to have ordered the invasion of eastern Ukraine. That invasion
appears to have been undertaken as a freelance operation by a small group of
mercenaries funded by a well-connected Russian businessman. Real Russian troops
came later. But if Putin isn't in charge of everything – if there are powerful
forces operating outside of Putin's say-so – what's the point of Putinology? On
this point, Putinology is silent.
The absolute worst crime of which Putin has been accused is the bombing of
several apartment blocks in Moscow in 1999. In September of that year, with
President Boris Yeltsin ill, presidential elections just around the corner, and a
relatively unknown Putin recently moved from heading the FSB to running the
government as Yeltsin's prime minister, two large apartment buildings blew up in
Moscow, killing nearly 300 people. A few days later there was another building
explosion, this time in the southern city of Volgodonsk. And a few days after
that, in a bizarre incident, some men were caught by local police planting what
appeared to be explosives in the basement of a building in Ryazan – the men turned
out to be from the FSB. They quickly removed the apparent bomb and declared the
whole thing a "training exercise" meant to test the vigilance of the populace and
the police.
Though the government immediately accused Chechen terrorists of planting the
bombs, and used this as justification for its invasion of Chechnya, a persistent
minority has always insisted the government itself was responsible. (Litvinenko
was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of this theory.) A public
commission to investigate the allegations was set up by the Soviet chemist turned
dissident Sergei Kovalyov. Two members of the commission, Sergei Yushenkov and
Yuri Shchekochikhin, were killed in 2003. Yushenkov was shot outside his apartment
building; Shchekochikhin was poisoned.
The question of the Russian government's involvement in the bombings has
remained a vexed one. The most authoritative account of the available evidence was
written up a few years ago by John Dunlop of the Hoover Institute. While careful
not to claim to have settled the case definitively, Dunlop argued that there is
compelling evidence that the bombings were ordered by the Yeltsin inner circle and
carried out by the FSB.
And yet here, too, Putin evades us. If the apartment bombings really were a
palace plot, it was not Putin's palace but Yeltsin's that plotted them. And indeed
the political killings that seem to characterise the Putin years also
characterised the Yeltsin ones. This does not, again, absolve Putin of anything.
But it points to a longer and more complex period of violence, of groups inside
and outside the government employing assassination and terror as a political
weapon, and not just the machinations of one evil man. If Putin, as president, is
unable to stop this violence, then maybe someone else should be president; if
Putin, as president, is a party to the violence, then certainly someone else
should be.
But on our end, it behoves us to be judicious. The practitioners of Putinology
are maddeningly imprecise, and in no area of Putinology is their imprecision more
damaging. When George Stephanopoulos appears on national TV and declares that
Putin ordered the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, it makes it that much harder to
pin the blame on Putin for things that he did, demonstrably and undoubtedly, do.
Theory 6: Putin is a kleptocrat
Until around 2009, the complaints of Putin's liberal critics in Russia,
amplified by western journalists and statesmen, centred on his abuses of human
rights. He was the censor of the Russian media, the butcher of Chechnya, a total
stick in the mud during our glorious invasion of Iraq, the killer of Litvinenko,
and the invader of Georgia. It took the anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny to
fundamentally shift the discourse around Putin away from these abuses and towards
something else: the theft of Russians' money. Navalny, a corporate lawyer and
online anti-corruption activist, concluded that in contemporary Russia, human
rights was not a winning issue, but money was. (He memorably dubbed Putin's United
Russia a "party of crooks and thieves".) In this account, soon taken up by western
Putinologists, Putin was no longer a scary monster but something simpler and more
manageable: a thief.
The accusation had the virtue of being unquestionably true. Either that, or a
surprising number of Putin's old friends were business geniuses, because in the
period since he came to power, they had become billionaires. It was one thing for
the Berezovskys and Khodorkovskys and Abramoviches to emerge from the vicious
scramble of the 1990s with billions in their pockets – certainly they could not
have made those billions were it not for their proximity to the Yeltsin regime,
but they also had to survive the wilds of early Russian capitalism. They were
geniuses of a kind. Whereas the only genius ever demonstrated by Putin's
billionaire friends was befriending the future president of Russia.
If Putin liked his friends (which he seemed to) and if his friends liked lining
their pockets (which they definitely did), then it followed that hitting Putin's
friends in their wallets would cause Putin to pull back from some of his more
outrageous foreign policy gambits, most notably in Ukraine. This was the genesis
of the "targeted" sanctions imposed in 2014 by the US and EU against Putin's
"inner circle".
If we do not hear so much anymore about Putin's kleptocracy, it may be because
these sanctions failed to alter the behaviour of Putin on the world stage. No
doubt Putin's friends, and Putin himself, did not enjoy the sanctions: Putin's
friends because they were no longer allowed to travel to their favourite vacation
spots in Spain; Putin because the sanctions put him beyond the pale of the
international order. It was embarrassing.
But this did not stop Putin from stalling and undermining the Minsk accords
meant to halt the fighting in eastern Ukraine, nor did it stop Putin from pursuing
his brutal intervention in the Syrian civil war. If Putin's friends were begging
him to come to his senses, he wasn't listening. More likely, Putin's friends knew
that they had been the beneficiaries of his largesse, his unlikely rise to power,
and that they had to support him, come what may. Kleptocrats are not the types to
organise successful palace coups. For that, you need true believers. If there is a
true believer among them, he has yet to show his face. In fact, it appears the
closest thing to a true believer is Putin himself.
Putin lives a fairly modest day-to-day existence. Yes, he has a palace on the
Black Sea, built with pilfered funds, but he doesn't actually live in it. In fact,
it is unlikely that he will ever live in it. The palace is, in a way, the most
hopeful thing that Putin is building – a promise of his eventual retirement, and
under circumstances where he is not torn from limb to limb by a mob that has
entered the Kremlin and overpowered his personal guards.
Theory 7: Putin is named Vladimir
A recent article published on the website of
a respected American magazine
warned readers that the end of communism
"doesn't mean that Russia has dropped its primary mission of destabilising
Europe", and described Putin as "a former KGB agent who, it is no accident, shares
the name Vladimir Ilyich with Lenin". When it was pointed out that Putin does not,
in fact, share the name Vladimir Ilyich with Lenin – his name is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin – the article was corrected to say that it is no accident that
Putin shares the name Vladimir with Lenin. If it is not an accident, this may be
because it is one of the most common Russian names. But still, it cannot be
denied. Both Putin and Lenin are named Vladimir.
The Putin-is-named-Vladimir hypothesis is either the historic high point of
Putinology, or its nadir, depending on your perspective. But the confident
proclamation of expertise by someone who does not technically know Putin's name is
surely a sign of something. It's a sign that most Putinology is not and has never
been about Putin. In the weeks before and after the Trump inauguration, the
outpouring of Putinalysis was a function of wanting to wish Trump away, to blame
him on someone else. Surely we could not have elected this bigoted
idiot-narcissist – surely he must have been forced on us from somewhere else.
There is no reason at this point to dispute the consensus view of most
intelligence analysts that Russian agents hacked the DNC and then leaked the
emails to Julian Assange; it is also a well-known fact that Putin hated Hillary
Clinton.
Furthermore, it is true that the election was very close, and it did not take
much to tip the result to one side. But it is also essential to remember that
there was hardly anything damaging in the leaked DNC emails.
Compared to the 40-year cycle of US deindustrialisation, during which only the
rich gained in wealth; the 25-year rightwing war on the Clintons; the
eight-year-old Tea Party assault on facts, immigration and taxes; a tepid,
centrist campaign; and a supposed late-breaking revelation from the director of
the FBI about the dubious investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server
– well, compared to all those factors, the leaked DNC emails must rank low on the
list of reasons for Trump's victory. And yet, according to a recent report,
Hillary Clinton and her campaign still blame the Russians – and, by extension,
Barack Obama, who did not make a big issue of the hacks before November – for her
electoral debacle. In this instance, thinking about Putin helps not to think about
everything else that went wrong, and what needs to be done to fix it.
This evasion is the essence of Putinology, which seeks solace in the undeniable
but faraway badness of Putin at the expense of confronting the far more
uncomfortable badness in front of one's face. Putinology predates the 2016
election by a decade, and yet what we have seen in connection to Trump these past
few months has been its Platonic ideal.
Here in front of us is a man – Donald J Trump – who has said countless cruel
and bigoted things and proposed cruel and bigoted policies, who is a pathological
liar, who has failed in almost everything he has ever tried and who surrounds
himself with conmen and billionaires. And yet, day after day, there is breathless
excitement over each new data point in the effort to uncover Trump's hidden
connections to Russia – each one inflated by the hope that this, now, finally,
will render him illegitimate, remove him from the White House, and end the liberal
nightmare of having actually lost an election to this hateful dope.
If Donald Trump is impeached and imprisoned for conspiring with a foreign power
to undermine American democracy, I will celebrate as much as the next American.
And yet in the long run, the Russia card is not just bad politics, it is
intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It is an attempt to blame the deep and abiding
problems of our country on a foreign power. As some commentators have pointed out,
it is a page from the playbook of none other than Putin himself.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has advised the US State Department to keep up with
events after spokesperson Heather Nauert said that Lavrov "likes to talk a lot and get out ahead".
The Russian Foreign Minister was quick to retort, however.
"Nobody should get out ahead of things, but I suppose lagging behind real events does not help
in a diplomat's job either."
"I don't understand how this lady can know what I like and don't like. We haven't been introduced",
Lavrov said", speaking with the press following his meeting with the Belgian counterpart, Didier
Reynders, in Brussels on Wednesday.
I suppose Lavrov called her "a lady" because he's a gentleman, but for me she's just a woman who
shoots the shit that she's told and paid to shoot -- with a big, fixed smile on her Barbie-Doll face.
Big false smile, American know-nothing spokesperson.
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about
Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.
Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.
Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.
It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and
being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.
Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on
as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which
his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.
Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:
"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian
President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in
this bashing of Trump and Putin.
As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:
"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and
Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ...
and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.
The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or
cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done.
I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."
Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and
down in emphatic agreement.
Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring
- 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and
their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't
say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home
of the brave.
"... Sergey Markov is a one of the most influential Russian political scientists and publicists on international relations. ..."
"... He is omnipresent as a charismatic talking head on the top national TV shows, and his thinking reflects the opinions of Russia's political elites. He speaks English fluently, and writes in a lively, accessible style, unusual for academics. ..."
"... This article, exclusive to RI, gives an interesting insight into how Russian elites see US behavior. ..."
"... Russia responded by the food embargo from Russia, so the Russian producers in fact gained from the whole story, with president Obama still uttering his phrase about the Russian economy being "in tatters." ..."
"... The peak of Western sanctions against Russia during the period of "Russia Isolated" was the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. The pressure on Putin was so obvious, that he even had to leave the summit before all the other participants. ..."
"... That Western policy continued between March 2014 and autumn of 2015. Its legacy is still with us. After Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected the president in 2016, voices about the easing or even lifting the anti-Russian sanctions started to be heard in Europe and the US. But the legacy of 2014-2015 still dominates: the US requires Russia to change its policy in Ukraine (in fact, allowing the population of Donbass to be subjected to Nazi-like repressions). These requirements are unacceptable for Russia, but the West is determined not to lift sanction until its wishes (presented as "conditions of the Minsk agreement", even though Russia is not even mentioned there) are fulfilled. ..."
"... As a result, Trump was not allowed even to form his own new foreign policy team, he had to inherit that very part of Obama's foreign policy establishment, which Trump himself criticized during the elections. ..."
"... Currently, the Russia-US relations are in a state of a hiatus, a pause with no immediate end in sight. The new president of the US simply cannot conduct the Russia policy, which he had in his mind and which he promised his voters. His actions are blocked, and it is not clear how long this situation will persist. ..."
"... Very interesting assessment, but it ignores that Wall-Street starting with Clinton then re-enforced by Bush & Obama now Owns US Presidency, and Financiers do not adhere to Democratic principles, rather they are Dictators who view the public as assets to exploit, with Obama sabotaging Trump's Presidency on his way out. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin will eventually go down as 'The Shrewdest Gutsiest Moral Principled Politician of this era, with Chinese President Xi second, and US three stooges before Trump the most inept cowards or sell-outs in the history of that Nation. ..."
Top Russian Analyst Explains How US Relations Got So Bad
A short history of US-Russia relations since 'Gorby-mania'
Sergey Markov
15
Sergey Markov is a one of the most influential Russian political scientists and
publicists on international relations.
He is omnipresent as a charismatic talking head on the top national TV shows, and his
thinking reflects the opinions of Russia's political elites. He speaks English fluently, and
writes in a lively, accessible style, unusual for academics.
This article, exclusive to RI, gives an interesting insight into how Russian elites see
US behavior.
What would happen, if journalists from the early 2000s or even from the year 2007 (before
Saakashvili's attack against South Ossetia) could by some magic gadget have access to the
computer screens of their colleagues covering the recent G20 summit in Hamburg? These
journalists would probably think they were transported into some kindergarten dystopia.
They would see everyone rejoicing about "the very fact" of a meeting of two middle-aged men
with the most modern planes, ships and submarines at their disposal. A meeting that took place
more than half of a year after they were supposed to meet as the presidents of the world's two
most powerful countries. German chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the third most powerful
person in the world, says she is happy that the two men met and that they "stay in touch"
(parents are usually happy about this kind of relationships between their children in a
kindergarten).
The media frenzy around the meeting between these two middle-aged men looks absurd: what is
there to admire and what is there to fear?
So, how did we allow the international relations to be reduced to the level when it became
so difficult to organize a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the US – even on
the background of the two very dangerous armed conflicts (in Syria and in Ukraine)? Why is a
contact between two politicians in the epoch of modern transportation and communication –
why is this contact such a problem now? Why does it take even more time and effort than the
summits between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill during the World War II, when the capitals of
the Allies were divided by the Nazi-occupied Europe and the Western Pacific occupied by the
Japanese militarist regime?
In this situation, a short wrap-up of the Russia-US relations from the 1980s to 2017 might
do some good: at least, it partially explains today's absurdities.
The history of relationships between Russia and the US in the last 25 years is full of
zigzags and its own ups and downs. From my point of view, it is possible to single out 11
stages in this relationship. Each of them left its own legacy, and those different legacies
continue to make a difference in various ways until now. Let me first single out all of these
stages:
"Gorbomania" Consolidation of geopolitical pluralism. Russia First Russia doesn't
matter War against terror. The epoch of "color revolutions" Perezagruzka 2 ("Reload of
Relations") Onslaught on Putin (the Russian president is presented as an authoritarian leader
of a regional power) Russia Isolated. Sanctions Russia is back as a world power "Russian
hackers": pause of uncertainty
Act 1: Gorbomania (Gorby-mania)
The period of improvement in relations, which was based on hopes connected to Gorbachev,
continued from 1987 until August 1991, the time of the de facto collapse of the Soviet Union.
During this period, the US supported the new foreign policy course of Mikhail Gorbachev, which
was generally aimed at openness, reconciliation with the West and general liberalization of the
Soviet political regime. During this period the US did not conduct a policy aimed at the
disintegration of the Soviet Union, the US' political course was instead promoting the unity of
the USSR. This course was explained by the fear of the Soviet Union's collapse "in a Yugoslav
way," with a possible nuclear war between former constituent republics.
One of the indicators of this cautious American approach to the unity of the Soviet Union
was the famous "chicken Kiev speech" of the then president George W.H.Bush (the senior). He
made that speech on August 1 of 1991 in the Supreme Soviet of what was then still the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic inside the Soviet Union. This body was already showing the signs of
being the future parliament of independent Ukraine, making defiant moves against Moscow.
However, in his speech president Bush told the audience that the US was not supporting Kiev's
independence at the moment and that Ukrainians should rather orient themselves to the policies
of the leader of the Soviet Union – Mikhail Gorbachev.
However, the period of Gorbomania (Gorby-mania) came to its natural end after the
liquidation of the Soviet Union and the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev from the position of
the defunct country's president. The legacy of that period was the formation in the US of a
stable and wrong stereotype of what "good Russia" should look like. This mythologized
stereotype presented "good Russia" as the Russia of Mikhail Gorbachev, which would make all
sorts of concessions to the West, willingly leaving to the West the territories, which
historically had been under its influence. So, in future Americans would support only that kind
of Russia's foreign policy, which would be a complete remake of Gorbachev's approach.
Act 2. Consolidation of Geopolitical Pluralism
The second period in the history of relations took the space between August 1991 and the
beginning of the year 1992. It can be summed up by the famous formula of "consolidation of
geopolitical pluralism." The essence of this formula consisted in the following. The USA did
bot strive to see the Soviet Union collapse, but since this collapse took place anyway, there
was no way Washington could permit any kind of rebirth of a union of post-Soviet republics
under the stewardship of Russia. The reason: such a rebirth would mean a new life for Russian
imperialism.
One could say that this period lasted shortly, but it would also be right to say that in a
lot of ways this period continues to this day. There is still a widespread opinion in the US
that Washington should provide all kinds of assistance to all the neighbors of Russia in a bid
to stem the growth of Russian influence there. This opinion also puts the sign of equality
between Russian influence and "Russian imperialism." The theory behind this opinion is that any
kind of union among the former Soviet republics with Russian participation would mean the
rebirth of the Russian empire. Any Russian empire, according to this view, would make Russia an
enemy of democracy and, as a consequence, an enemy of the United States. So, this view
justifies any kind of assistance to any kind of anti-Russian regimes in the post-Soviet
space.
In its extreme manifestation, this view inspired a policy that spurred the US to support the
violent coup in Ukraine in 2014. The US also supported the subsequent policy of state terrorism
led by the new regime in Kiev, that was installed as a result of the coup. In its softer forms,
this policy meant American support for de-Russification in all post-Soviet countries. This
support was provided despite the obvious fact that this de-Russification often took violent
forms.
Act 3. "Russia First".
The third period, which could tentatively be called "Russia First" approach, consisted in
the policy led by the then president Bill Clinton, the policy aimed at helping create a stable
and democratic Russia. The idea was that this Russia could be an ally of the West, a kind of
"kingsize Poland." This kingsize Poland was supposed to be a part of the Western coalition,
even though it would have a subordinate position inside this coalition. American support for
denuclearization of Ukraine (the removal of former Soviet nuclear weapons from the territories
of the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan) – this American
support was a part of "Russia First" policy.
In fact, Ukrainian political elites tried to retain the military nuclear capability on the
territory of independent Ukraine. But Washington, represented by president Clinton and his key
"ambassador-at-large" on Russia and post-Soviet space, Strobe Talbott, had a different plan.
So, Washington pressured Kiev to transfer the nuclear weapons from the Ukrainian territory to
Russia. This approach fitted the geopolitical interests of the United States, allowing to avert
a possible conflict between Russia and Ukraine as nuclear powers. Such a conflict could have
disastrous consequences for everyone. So, this policy fitted the Russian interests too.
The other distinct feature of the "Russia First" policy was the American pressure on the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other international financial
organizations. The aim was to persuade these structures to provide loans to Russia, even when
the economic policy of the Russian government did not fit the requirements of the IMF and
similar organizations to their client countries.
The other important element of "Russia First" policy was the presence of political and
economic advisers from the United States and its allied countries in Russia. These people,
being citizens of their countries, influenced the decisions of the Russian government,
including some key decisions. Alas, the advice of these helpers, as well as the US assistance
in general, did more harm than good, often leading to failures. The idea of making Russia a
stable democratic country did not work. Russia crawled from one crisis to another. In 1993
Yeltsin made a violent coup d'etat, with tanks firing at the parliament's building, the
constitution being changed and new policies rammed through without consent from the parliament.
The presidential election of 1996, of which Yeltsin was declared the winner, had all the
indications of being falsified (the bulletins cast were later destroyed by the government). If
elections had been held in a fair way, the candidate of the Communist party of Russian
Federation Gennady Zyuganov could have been the winner.
The crisis and the subsequent default in 1998 led the economy to a disaster. The same year
IMF de facto refused to continue cooperation with Russia, stopped giving loans and predicted
that the Russian economy would contract by 8 percent. This forecast revealed itself to be
wrong. As soon as Russia stopped using the services of Western economic advisers, its economy
started growing and added 9 percent in the course of two subsequent years.
The period of "Russia First" and its legacy are still very much alive in today's policy of
the United States towards Russia. They Western elites stay convinced that at a certain moment
they provided great assistance to Russia and its people, giving their valuable advice and
providing billions of dollars in loans. In the Russian public opinion, however, the majority
view of this period is negative. It is viewed as further proof of the West's negative influence
on Russia and the anti-Russian character of its foreign policy. Russian public opinion puts on
the Western advisers of the Yeltsin government part of the blame for the disaster that Russian
economy had to go through in the 1990s. The majority view in Russia is that it was Yeltsin's
government (and its foreign advisers) that led in the 1990s to Russia's deindustrialization,
the collapse of social institutions, the decline of science and education, mass migration out
of the country. At the time, the mortality rates in the country soared. The rapid deterioration
of life's standards led to a lot of "premature" deaths: in 1991-1997 on the territory of the
Russian Federation every year there were many more deaths registered annually than in 1990. The
total number of "premature" deaths for social reasons is estimated at the level of 2
million.
In a huge chunk of Russia's public opinion the prevailing view is that this socio-economic
degradation of the country was a part of a conscious effort by the West to deceive Russia and
to inflict the biggest possible damage on it.
In this way, the 1990s stay the main source of the diverging mythologies still dominating
the bilateral relations between Russia and the community of Western nations.
The West honestly thinks that in the 1990s it helped Russia and generally played a positive
role in its development. The majority of the Russian public opinion for good reasons sticks to
the view that the West in the 1990s preserved and pampered Yeltsin's corrupt regime, thus
adding to the destruction of the country. An often cited argument in support of that view is
the fact that the West supported Yeltsin's coup d'etat in 1993 and acquiesced to the
falsification of the 1996 presidential election, which retained Yeltsin in power.
The diverging visions of the 1990s' legacy will determine the "conflict potential" of the
relations between Russia and the US for many more years.
Act 4. "Russia Does Not Matter"
This period started in 1998 and continued until the year 2001. It was a reaction to the
previous unsuccessful attempt to help Russia in a speedy forming of a democratic, stable and
West-friendly socio-political system. The end product was a weak country with a corrupt
government and a crumbling economy – a typical declining power.
This period was ushered in by an acute economic crisis of 1998, it included the beginning of
the economy's regeneration in 1999-2001, Boris Yeltsin's resignation and his replacement by his
younger successor Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Putin, who was initially viewed in the US as just another opportunistic
"apparatchik" brought to power by the corrupt ruling "family" in order to preserve that
family's capitals and help it avoid the revenge of its enemies and Russia's people in
general.
This period seats deep in Russian people's memory because it coincided with the peak of the
Balkan wars with bombers from the US and other NATO countries bombing the then Yugoslav capital
Belgrade and other cities of Serbia. The famous U-turn of the Washington-bound airplane of the
then Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov also falls into this period. The prime minister
was heading to the United States with a visit and, having learnt about the start of NATO's
bombing of Serbia, Primakov decided to return back to Russia, making a U-turn over the
Atlantic. Primakov decided to return without visiting Washington, even though the talks there
had pivotal importance for the Russian economy.
It was then, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, that a serious change in the attitude of the
public opinion to the West and especially to the United States took place. The cruel Western
bombardment of Serb cities, led to the new perception of America as a hostile, aggressive and
unjust country. The pro-American politicians in Russia started to be perceived as anti-Russian
and generally unpatriotic.
Act 5. Russia and the US as Allies in the Fight Against International Terrorism (War On
Terror)
The fifth period was ushered in by the terrorist act of 9/11 in the year 2001, when Russia
and the US became allies in the fight against international terrorism. The preconditions for
the alliance were created during the meeting between the Russian president Vladimir Putin and
George Bush the junior in Ljubljana, the Slovenian capital, in June 2001. It was there that
Bush said that he looked Putin in the eye and saw Putin's soul there. Putin's system of
personal values cracked up to be remarkably akin to Bush – it was a combination of
economic liberalism, social conservatism and religiosity.
Having learnt that Putin retained his Christians beliefs even inside the KGB, Bush made a
conclusion that one could do business with Putin. This positive sentiment on Bush'a side got a
powerful boost after the terrorist attack against the United States on 9/11 2001, when Putin
became the first foreign leader who called Bush with an expression of support. Putin's support
was not in words alone: on Putin's order, in 2001 all military activity of Russia was frozen
for a few days, so that American armed forces could concentrate on fighting international
terrorism, instead of wasting their resources on Russia.
In a few weeks the US became convinced that the brain center of the 9/11 attack was located
in Afghanistan, so it was decided to crush the Taliban regime. It was then that Russia passed
to the US a part of influence that Russia had over the Afghan-based Northern Alliance, a
coalition of field commanders of mostly Tajik and Uzbek origin in the north of Afghanistan. As
the US Airforce made its bombing strikes, all the "dirty work" of destroying the military might
of Taliban on the Afghan ground was done by the Northern Alliance, with lots of help from the
Russian special services and Russian army command. Most of the commanders of the Northern
alliance had fought against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but they later became allied with
Russians in their fight against the Taliban.
The period of joint fight against terrorism was a great success, since the headquarters of
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the regime of Taliban (but not its ideology) were liquidated.
Cooperation between the Russian and American special services allowed to prevent a number of
jihadist terrorist acts.
However, that anti-terrorist cooperation was quickly weakened by the desire of the United
States to develop on their success in Afghanistan by toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
Russia condemned the preparation of that war. Bush perceived the Russian opposition to the war
in Iraq as treason on Russia's side. His narrative was that Russia betrayed the anti-terrorist
alliance. So, Bush thought himself in his right to terminate his obligations to Russia in the
framework of the anti-terrorist alliance.
Even though the war in Iraq was recognized to have been a mistake in the United States,
relations between Russia and the US (including the anti-terrorist track) never returned to the
level of the period of the early days of the "War On Terror." The fact that the pretext for the
war – the presumed possession by Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction
– revealed itself to be a massive falsification, undermined Russia's trust in the US
mainstream media and its periodic hysterias over various "mortal threats" requiring American
military interventions.
In general, the period of the "war on terror" left in Russians a firm belief that
partnership with the West in the anti-terrorist fight should continue. This belief was
strengthened by the growth in the scope and sophistication of international terrorism. In the
United States' elite too, there remained a substantial minority group which considered
anti-terrorist cooperation with Russia feasible.
Act 6. Color Revolutions
Already in November 2003, the first "color revolution" won in Georgia using a rose as its
symbol (the words "flower" and "color" have the same sounding in Russian). The new leader
Mikheil Saakashvili, with active support from the United States, started conducting a very
anti-Russian foreign policy. In 2004, another color revolution happened in Ukraine – the
closest ethnic relative of Russia, in whose capital (Kiev) the proto-Russian ancient state
Kievan Rus was born. The winner of the Ukrainian color revolution, Viktor Yushchenko, also took
a very anti-Russian position. All of these revolution won with active support from the American
government and so called "non-government" (Soros-financed NGOs) structures.
All of these revolutions had a powerful anti-Russian message and they were all supported by
the US authorities, including the president of the United States. In the West, discussions
about the desirability of a 'color revolution' in Russia started. Russia responded with a tough
"no" to this "project for its future." Limitations on the work of American NGOs in Russia were
imposed. Putin's speech of the year 2007 in Munich became the apotheosis of this Russian "no,"
with Putin denouncing not only the Western policy of "regime change," but also with Putin
denouncing the unipolar world with the US and the EU as the undisputed pole.
The US continued their onslaught, however, and the next conflict happened in Georgia. The
pro-US Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili started his military operation against what he
called "pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia," who had seceded from Georgia fearing
genocide under the first Georgian ultranationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia back in
1991.
Saakashvili's artillery struck not only at South Ossetians, but also at the Russian
peace-keeping contingent in South Ossetia. In retaliation, the Russian army intervened in South
Ossetia, and soon the Georgian troops, who had already begun celebrating their conquest of the
South Ossetian capital Tskhinval, were pushed back to their initial positions. The US did not
have the guts to support their ally militarily and backed off. However, the red line of direct
military combat between the Russian and American forces was dangerously close.
Act 7. The Politics of Reload (Perezagruzka 2)
This period, ushered in by Barack Obama's coming to power, is marked by a temporary hiatus
in the information war between the two countries. Russia also joined the WTO, and it seemed
that a normal dialogue was restarting. Even the arrest of 10 Russian reconnaissance operatives
in the US did not lead to a cooling of relations between the two countries, but rather to a
"spy exchange" and even to a certain warming of relations.
The policy of reload, started in 2009, promised great perspectives, but it was wrapped up in
a rather brief period of time. Contradiction was programmed into the very structure of the
"reload" strategy. The aim of the "reload" was to improve relations between the US and Russia
in a bid to get Russian support for the American foreign policy initiatives. The problem
consisted in the fact that not all of these foreign policy initiatives were acceptable for
Russia or simply well thought through.
For example, in spring 2011 the US pushed through a resolution of the Security Council of
the United Nations on Libya, with Russia abstaining in the hope of giving the US a chance to
resolve the Libyan problem. The result was awful: the resolution was misinterpreted to pave the
way for a Western military intervention in Libya on the side of Islamist insurgents against the
country's ruler, Muhammar Qaddafi. After the Western bombings and the collapse of Qaddafi's
regime, Libya was plunged into the abyss of a civil war which continues to this way. Russia's
decision in 2011 not to veto the US-suggested resolution at the United Nations was a serious
mistake, which Moscow is determined not to repeat in future.
The first indicator of the Reload's speedy end was the American support for the protests
that enveloped Moscow as a result of the opposition's defeat at the parliamentary elections of
2011. The US made clear its desire NOT to see Vladimir Putin back in the president's seat after
the brief tenure of Dmitry Medvedev as the president. An important threshold was the official
visit by the then US vice-president Joe Biden at the time. During his visit, Biden gave Putin
an unsolicited "advice" not to present his candidacy for another term.
The conflict aggravated in 2013, when Moscow had the guts not to extradite the fugitive
American whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who found himself on the Russian territory after his
escape from Hong Kong putting Russia before a hard choice. The fact that Russia became the only
country in the world that didn't cave in to Washington's demand for Snowden's scalp, this fact
enraged Washington and in the first place the American intelligence community. After the
Snowden episode the period of Reload actually came to its end.
The really important result of the Reload period was Washington's conviction that attempts
to improve relations with Moscow by what the American side saw as "concessions" (even though
they were not real concessions) – that these attempts are futile.
Act 8. Frontal Attack Against Russia's Interests (Putin presented as an "authoritarian
leader of a regional superpower")
Here comes the 8th stage of the Russia-US relations, which lasted between 2012 and 2013. It
was the time of a frontal personal attack against the Russian president Vladimir Putin. The
Russian interests were attacked too.
American sanctions tied to the Magnitsky case and attempts to make an information attack
against Putin's beloved project, the Sochi Olympics, were seen by many as hostile acts, the
context of the Snowden scandal did not add to easing tensions.
It was then, back in the summer of 2013, that the American intelligence community, enraged
by the Snowden episode, got down seriously to the project of removing the Ukrainian president
Viktor Yanukovych. The opportunity presented itself when the controversy over the costs of
Ukraine's joining the Association Agreement with the EU led to violent protests in Kiev.
Western threats of personal sanctions paralyzed the will for resistance on the side of
Yanukovych and Ukraine's government, oligarchs were pushed to change sides by the Western
pressure. The legitimate government failed to restore order and prevent a violent "regime
change", during which mass protests were "reformatted" as a violent rebellion.
The result of the 8th act was the establishment of a certain consensus in Washington. That
consensus boiled down to the conviction that Russia is an enemy, and it should be treated as an
enemy, with toughness sooner or later being rewarded by a victory. The outcome in Ukraine in
the first days after the toppling of Yanukovych in the end of February 2014 was seen by the
American elite as one such victory.
Act 9. Russia Isolated. Sanctions.
After the Ukrainian Maidan, a new low in Russia-US relations installed itself for duration.
Russia reacted to the violent coup in Ukraine, with a rabidly anti-Russian regime established
there, by taking back Crimea, with most of Crimeans more willing than ever to leave the newly
nationalist Ukraine. The Russian leadership also supported the rebellion of the Donbass
population, where the rebels were dying in an uneven fight against the Ukrainian army, with its
airplanes, tanks and artillery. In response, the US started a powerful campaign against Russia.
Sanctions against Russia were introduced, and the West started demanding that Russia stop its
support for the movement in Donbass, which soon took the form of popular antifascist
resistance.
A hybrid war, which the West accused Russia of leading, was in fact declared to Russia.
Hundreds of Russian officials and business companies faced economic or visa sanctions. Ruble
lost half of its value, which had a negative and a positive outcome: the negative was in a
lower living standard and the positive in an increased competitive capacity of the Russian
products.
Russia responded by the food embargo from Russia, so the Russian producers in fact gained
from the whole story, with president Obama still uttering his phrase about the Russian economy
being "in tatters."
The peak of Western sanctions against Russia during the period of "Russia Isolated" was the
G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. The pressure on Putin was so obvious, that he even had to
leave the summit before all the other participants.
The result of the period was the formation of a big Euro-Atlantic anti-Russian coalition,
with iron discipline inside it. The other outcome was the legacy of sanctions and other
elements of a de-facto hybrid war, now seen as a legitimate method of resolving the "Russian
problem."
That Western policy continued between March 2014 and autumn of 2015. Its legacy is still
with us. After Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected the president in 2016, voices about the
easing or even lifting the anti-Russian sanctions started to be heard in Europe and the US. But
the legacy of 2014-2015 still dominates: the US requires Russia to change its policy in Ukraine
(in fact, allowing the population of Donbass to be subjected to Nazi-like repressions). These
requirements are unacceptable for Russia, but the West is determined not to lift sanction until
its wishes (presented as "conditions of the Minsk agreement", even though Russia is not even
mentioned there) are fulfilled.
Act 10. Russia is Back
The new 10th period in the history of relations between Russia and the US started to the
accompaniment of the Russian fighter jets' engines, as the Russian aviation came to Syria to
save president Assad from the foreign-supported insurgents. The most prominent among the
insurgents were visibly unpalatable for years: they were jihadists from the so called Islamic
State and Al-Qaeda. By the end of 2015 it became obvious that Russia changed the course of
events in Syria, thus establishing itself as a leading world power, and not as a regional one
(see the Act 8).
The result was not just the jihadists' failure to topple Assad, but a gradual
reestablishment of the Syrian government's full control over the most developed regions of
Syria, such as Damascus and Aleppo.
The result was the general view that "Russia is Back", by 2016 it became a generally
accepted opinion. The narrative of the Western press changed dramatically: just months before
it wrote about Russia as a declining power, which is isolated with its economy in Obamian
"tatters," by the winter 2016/2017 the narrative changed to Russia being "an overwhelming
threat." Now Russia is perceived as a mighty international force, which can force on the United
States and the EU the unfavorable results of votes and elections (Brexit, Trump's
election).
This view of Russia as a "reborn" power in international relations is often coupled with
Putin's demonization. The view of the Russian president as an all-powerful demon, which can
manipulate the results of elections and public opinion in the US, Germany and France, while
easily pushing Britain into Brexit – this view will one day be viewed as a twenty first
century conspiracy theory, on the par with myths about the all-controlling "elders of Zion" and
similar absurdities.
The result of Act 10 is the view of Russia as a "comeback kid" on the global stage, but the
actions of this resurgent power are viewed as hostile to the US.
Act 11 – the ongoing one. Russian Hackers: the Pause of Unpredictability
During his electoral campaign, Donald Trump promised to improve Russia-US relations and
spoke in favor of ending the new cold war. However, despite his sensational victory at the
elections, the new US president soon found himself in a situation when he simply did not have a
chance to pursue his vision of foreign policy. The unprecedented pressure came from Trump's
enemies and from the US establishment in general. Trump was accused of having been brought to
power by Russian "super-hackers." He was constantly presented as an admirer of Putin and later
as a person under Russian influence, simply because he owes his electoral victory to Russia and
to Putin personally. The American president is on the brink of impeachment.
As a result, Trump was not allowed even to form his own new foreign policy team, he had to
inherit that very part of Obama's foreign policy establishment, which Trump himself criticized
during the elections.
Currently, the Russia-US relations are in a state of a hiatus, a pause with no immediate end
in sight. The new president of the US simply cannot conduct the Russia policy, which he had in
his mind and which he promised his voters. His actions are blocked, and it is not clear how
long this situation will persist.
TIMELY CONCLUSIONS
So, which legacy is staying with us after all these periods of recent history?
Washington is convinced that a "good Russia" is a possibility.
This is the kind of Russia
that cedes ground to the US on every issue. "Good Russia" is also supposed to willingly lave
the territory of its historic influence. It is expected to conduct the policy against its own
national interest and to follow all recommendations from abroad, even if that goes against the
right of its own citizens.
The US sees its aim as helping the countries around Russia in
order to stem the spread of Russian influence.
Russian influence is seen as negative by
definition. Washington sees itself as a friend of the Russian people, not Russian state. The
period of the 1990s, seen in Russia as a disaster, is admired in the US. In the US there is a
widespread view of Russia as a vulnerable "giant on the feet of clay" Russia still believes it
can be an ally of the US in the fight against terrorism.
The US has powerful instruments of undermining Russia, the technologies of "soft power" in
the first place.
Washington is not prepared to any concessions towards Russia, they are viewed
as a way to a dead end. Washington still sees Putin as a supernatural demon, with the media
recreating that delusion Sanctions form the backbone of the US policy towards Russia Russia is
seen in the US as an enemy of the US – weak or strong.
Foreign policy towards Russia is still a hostage of the inner politics in the US.
The
"Russiagate" is seen as a way towards Trump's impeachment.
In this situation the US elite still has ahead of it the task of forming a coherent policy
towards Russia.
Meet the New World Order .. Once it is understood Communism and Zionism are both trees
split from the same trunk and the same root system, the picture becomes clearer. Both had the
same goal: World Domination. Which one won? Putin, a Christian, stopped the ZioCON/Communists
looting of Russia and, when he started to prosecute them, they fled to Israel. Today they've
shifted their focus to the USA and, and in addition to looting the USA, they're bringing
their Iron Curtain police state down on us. Until Trump, at the risk of being called an
anti-Semite, gets the courage to do what Putin did and toss the ZioCON/Communists out of the
US Government, the USA will continue its' downhill slide and, if they ever get the guns,
millions of Christians will die, just like they did to the Christians in Russia.
Putin is a very influential person on the world stage at this point.
But to call Trump and the German zionist collaborating cow, second and third most powerful
people in the world?
You do not understand they are hand puppets?
And you are writing a political dissection piece?
Congrats Russia-Insider, you now have two great analysts clearing up the mess and making
things clear between the US and Russia - P. Goncharoff and S. Markov. I do appreciate their
views and brains!
Very interesting assessment, but it ignores that Wall-Street starting with Clinton then
re-enforced by Bush & Obama now Owns US Presidency, and Financiers do not adhere to
Democratic principles, rather they are Dictators who view the public as assets to exploit,
with Obama sabotaging Trump's Presidency on his way out.
Considering US lack of any victory
for the $Trillions squandered on Military Belligerence & Predation, 'Desperation' is more
fitting than any Political strategy.
Vladimir Putin will eventually go down as 'The Shrewdest
Gutsiest Moral Principled Politician of this era, with Chinese President Xi second, and US
three stooges before Trump the most inept cowards or sell-outs in the history of that Nation.
How else could US Senate & Reps in-cahoots with Spy-services be so confident as to
threaten it's newly "elected" President? Fact is, every Nation which survived US &
clients' sanctions, embargoes & asset freezes (never to be returned) are Head &
Shoulders above those who subjugated themselves out of fear or lack of fortitude. Enough
victims who know how to fight, to outnumber gang-banging NATO and it's EU parasites. Exciting
& Traumatic times ahead.
The only thing effecting U.S. Russia relations is the Jewish lobby, both in the U.K. and
the U.S. The good thing is that the world is now waking up to the word Zionist. The Jewish
media up to now has had total control of world opinion. The writing is on the wall, there is
other financial institutions the new world is turning to, and their options are limitless.
Right now the Zionists think they can weather the storm; but if their wrong it will be the
end of their monopoly. Add to that the growing backlash against Israel and the consequences
of public opinion. Especially in the United States,Great Britain,Australia and of course
Israel.
The American public is asleep at the wheel, not unlike a drunk at the wheel of a 50'
tractor trailer having a blackout episode or better yet, at the controls of a 10 mile long
train running at 100 mph. The road/track is littered with people who are also asleep, and the
end of the road/rail line is a steep cliff leading to nowhere, into the abyss. We, the U.S.,
are within inches of that end of the 'line', and nobody is paying attention. You will not
affect the American Public unless you take things like reality TV, Dancing with the Stars or
Honey Boo Boo away, and jack the price of gas up to $10 a gallon.
It does not matter if you are a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, a blind evangelical
christian, or a normal run of the mill Joe the Plumber. The end result is the same, and it
has been repeated over and over throughout man's history. Empires will rise and fall; their
speed of ascension or decent is a factor of the technology today, the timeline is highly
compressed today because of things like the internet.
Generally speaking, all we can do is just sit back for the ride, and if so inclined, prepare
for the massive conflagration that will be the result of the impending crash.
Russia's star is on the rise, the United States, and those attached to it, are on the
descent. Natural process of history. Get over it. Screaming for your safe space is something
that was seen in the fall of Rome as well! As is the murder of the infants and unborn; all
text book, checklist fall of empire.
You can sit back and ignore it, take note and watch it unfold, move to a safer location
(southern hemisphere!), do as you please; the average man and woman are without any other
control other than their exact location on the planet.
What the esteemed writer points out is the points of the checklist, nothing more. There was
no cause and effect, it was a matter of natural process.
God is doing a thing and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Probably not even
relocation!
There's nothing normal or inevitable about it, and God has nothing to do with it. We can
control our fate through free will. Putin did it in Russia, so why can't the USA? True,
Russians are less enamored with bread and circuses than the poorly educated average American,
but just read the posts from average Americans on the internet, The times they are a changin!
Social change is always brought about by a minority of people with conviction for their
goals. The masses will inevitably follow. That is the real lesson of history.
Hope you're right. But while I also believe the US citizenry, should it rise up, could
make a huge difference, not just within its homeland, but on an international scale.
The melancholic truth, however, is that the US Americans are among the most docile and
subservient people collectively when it comes to politics. So while you're right about the
exercise of free will (which is an important aspect of the Christian religion BTW), it seems
highly unlikely that they will be galvanized for a well-directed political action.
History. It repeats itself. We are in another repeat of that loop. The American Public has
nothing to do with it other than being unwitting victims.
THE ONLY way the American public will sit up and take notice is an actual, physical kick in
the mouth; history. Beyond that, they will continue to take the BS that is dished out and say
"thank you can I have another". Yes, there is a SMALL percentage of the public that is taking
notice, but not enough to stop the slide, and certainly not enough to return to the
Constitution and Declaration; the first American revolution was supported and enacted by 14%
of the population.
The posts that you read are 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the population. That is .0000001% of 325
million people.
There is no recovery without a collapse.
- Russia's decision in 2011 not to veto the US-suggested resolution at the United Nations
was a serious mistake, which Moscow is determined not to repeat in future.
What matters is if Russia was in arming mode at that time. My gut feeling is Putin already
had concluded there will be a WWIII, and was preparing for that. The number of nuke shelters
finished by Jan 2015 is astonishing. The buildup of Putin Jugend happened before or at the
time?
By 2014 NATO had been turned into a expeditionary Corps ready to fight shoeless Africans.
They are adapting themselves too late, like Britain 1940
Monday evening, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Dr.
Dmitri Trenin gave a lecture at my university's school of public policy.
I won't try to give my own analysis of his remarks, but I will report them here for your
reading and discussing pleasure.
Present state of U.S.-Russian relationship
According to Dr. Trenin, the present state of relations can only be described as
'confrontation' (defined here as a state of relations in which collision is possible). We no
longer have a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations; since July of 2014 the two countries have
settled into a new paradigm.
Trenin takes issue with those who call this the "New Cold War." He says the current
confrontation differs from the old days in three distinct ways:
It is asymmetrical. The Cold War was fought between two superpowers/relatively equal
military blocs. The "New Cold War" pits the U.S., which has a vastly greater hand than its
opponent, against Russia, which does not want to lose.
It isn't static. During the Cold War, the Berlin wall and the division of Europe were
immobile and effectively shielded each bloc from the influence of the other. In the 21st
century, confrontation has spread to the information space ('propaganda'), the global
economic space (sanctions), and cyberspace (hacking).
It is waged without mutually accepted rules and norms.
Controlling confrontation
It goes without saying that we need to do whatever it takes to minimize the danger of
kinetic collison. Trenin opines that since the U.S. election, U.S.-Russian confrontation has
been "put on hold", but the idea that Trump would usher in a new reset or detente should be
taken with a large grain of salt. According to Trenin, the Russian government was all but
bracing for a Hillary Clinton victory.
Trenin's recommendations for how to control confrontation:
reopening channels of communication between the U.S. and Russia
meetings between U.S. and Russian defense chiefs to reduce incidents between U.S. and
Russian armed forces
Confidence-building measures (and here my notes become sloppy; it had something to do
with scaling back aggressive training exercises on Russian border in anticipation of an
invasion of the Baltics)
End the media/demonization barrage on both sides – the longer it lasts, the more
difficult it will be to deescalate tensions
Future of U.S.-Russian relations
The future relationship between the U.S. and Russia lies somewhere between managed adversity
and mismanaged adversity. There isn't a constituency in either country willing to work wholly
to improve the relationship. However, cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is still possible
in certain areas:
Nuclear arms proliferation – the question is whether this will remain part of the
relationship or become a nonregulated strategic environment
space
combating terrorism – but Trenin thinks a Russian-U.S. coalition to fight ISIS is
unlikely. The Pentagon wouldn't accept Russia as a partner. (He also mentioned that Russia
wants the coalition primarily because it would give Russia status and respect. That seems
simplified at best.)
Iran
trilateral discussion between U.S., Russia, and China on strategic issues. China's
assumed nuclear potential is less than that of U.S./Russia, but it remains a major military
power. It is in the interests of both the U.S. and Russia to strengthen stability in East
Asia.
political transition in Syria
Afghanistan – mutual interest in preventing the country from becoming an ISIS
romping-ground.
Libya – against extremists; for political settlement
North Pole
Russian Far East; Siberia
Trenin asserts that Russia has neither the will nor capacity to act as a superpower, and
also that whatever future cooperation between the U.S. and Russia will have to occur within the
existing framework of confrontation and adversity.
Thus concluded the lecture.
Questions from the audience
Yes, yours truly stayed for the Q&A, which tends to be the most disastrous part of any
Russia-related lecture. In actuality, this particular Q&A wasn't bad!
Opinon on the
recent anticorruption protests in Russia
Trenin says there are several sides to the issue (although he only explains one).
people in Russia are becoming less tolerant of corruption. In the recent past, corruption
among officials was not seen as something completely abhorrent. Because "for the first time
in their long history, the Russian people were left alone by their government."
The corruption material on Medvedev came from a very authoritative source: the FSB (did
it? That also begs the question of why they'd pass it off to Navalny of all people –
J.T.)
Revelations could be a manifestation of elite competition – different economic
visions for Russia within the administration
Mass demonstrations have occurred across Russia for the first time in almost five
years.
Russian elections are about confronting people in power, not changing them. So even
though elections won't be held until 2018, it's safe to say the election year has already
begun.
Potentially, this could become dangerous, as with anything in volatile Russia.
How will Russia and China maintain their political "friendship"?
The Sino-Russian partnership is best characterized as "good neighborly relations".
There isn't much suspicion of China in Russia, despite glaring imbalances within each
country.
Russia is stong militarily, but lacks China's economic and demographic heft. China is an
economic superpower and one of the most populous countries of the world, but lacks Russia's
military might.
No two countries can be each other's direct equals. The key is to construct a
relationship which won't lead to unilateral concessions.
Russia's problem is that it cannot accept any other country's leadership over its own. In
Trenin's opinion, refusal to join a larger organization coupled with inability to defeat it
can be costly.
The relationship is complicated. Trenin doubts Russia will accept Chinese leadership.
Unlike the U.S., China wisely knows how to treat Russia with a modicum of care.
Population decline and demographic changes in Russia
One of the most important issues facing Russia today, in Trenin's opinion.
Due to improvements in life expectancy and birthrate, projections have become somewhat
less dangerous for Russia.
Still, Trenin believes the real issue at hand isn't numbers, but the declining body of
the workforce.
Ways of dealing with it: 1) Increase productivity. Currently the productivity of the
average Russian worker is 25% of that of an American worker. 2) Improve healthcare. 3) "open
up to others". (A few million guest workers have come to Russia from FSU countries.)
Russian economic development policy
Basically, there isn't one. Trenin says the Russian government has merely coasted on high
oil prices, and when oil prices fell, the economy went into recession. He distills Putin into
two things:
keeping Russia in one piece, and
restoring Russia's status in the world as a great power
Neither one dealing with economic policy. Trenin pins hope for real economic development on
the post-Putin era.
There's a postscript to this little exercise in dictation that can't be resisted, and you
can make of it what you will:
In the entirety of this two-hour lecture (including student
questions), Trump was mentioned by name exactly one time.
Below is an unedited set of notes from a lecture given by former U.S.
Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock, Jr. sometime in Fall of 2016. This was before I
started blogging about lectures seriously, so the notes may seem patchy in places.
All the usual disclaimers; shadowquoted to the max.
On allegations of Russian interference in the elections
Can Russia influence the campaign? Sure! Anybody they endorse is likely to lose votes.
Ambassador Matlock is skeptical of interference allegations.
I cannot imagine that if our election system is well managed, that any external actor can
hack and change the election results.
He also believes the idea that the Russians prefer Trump is shaky. Many Russians prefer
Hillary due to her predictability.
What does the new president need to understand?
U.S. foreign policy is in many respects not serving the national interest.
trapped in never-ending wars
politically split at home into two antagonistic factions
tied to "allies" whose interests aren't the same as ours – might be drawn into
conflicts that are not in our interest
estranged from potential partners
infrastructure in need of repair – gross overspending in military, 100+ bases
abroad
current policy threatens new nuclear arms race
Why has this happened?
U.S. foreign policy has become too concentrated on militarism and the use of force to solve
problems.
The most serious threats facing the world today are:
Nuclear weapons
Global warming/environmental degradation
failed states/terrorism
Disease
International crime and corruption
All are only exacerbated by military force, and none can be managed without active
cooperation with Russia and china.
Ambassador Matlock says the future of the world, and indeed mankind, will not be determined
by geopolitical conquest or control of territory. The greatest challenges transcend national
boundaries and can only be solved through international cooperation.
How did we get off
track?
triumphialism/unilateralism after the Cold War – the U.S. started treating Russia
as a defeated nation. However, the U.S. did not defeat the USSR. The USSR collapsed due to
internal pressure.
behavior seen abroad as imperialist
failure to understand others' perceptions
insistence on democracy promotion/regime change. If a country isn't a democracy, change
the regime. This is based upon the assumption that democracy is the natural state of mankind.
However, it takes time to develop democratic institutions, and the people must be ready for
it.
Russian mistakes
overreaction to US/NATO/EU moves
military invention with neighbors
violation of prior agreements and international law
annexation of Crimea will be costly; Donbass fighting is a bleeding wound in Russia's
most important neighbor
These mistakes have costs aside from Western sanctions.
On sanctions. They don't incentivize a Russian change in policy and allow Russians to claim
that the problem lies not with their own government's policy, but with American
hostility.
Mistaken ideas
Control of land and people equals strength
The goal should be to maximize power (power for what?)
We should not think of power as a hierarchy: Do more powerful nations have rights or
privileges denied others?
Rivalry for control of territory benefits nobody. It damages or destroys the area fought
over.
Military force cannot create democracy in another country.
Priority tasks
Restore nuclear cooperation with Russia and bring China into the loop.
Stop military competition with China.
Stop expanding the alliance system and make clear there is no blank check to defend risky
behavior.
With both Russia and China, seek areas where cooperation is possible to mutual
benefit.
Long term:
Reduce the military component in foreign policy.
Withdraw from others' fights.
Talk to everyone.
End democracy promotion abroad, demonstrate its virtues at home.
Give Russia and China incentive to feel part of the industrial/post-industrial 21st
century world.
The situation is not hopeless.
Trump could be convinced he needs a different approach to be a "winner". Hillary may want to
overshadow the legacy of her husband and predecessor. Just as Reagan, elected on an
anticommunist platform, surprised people, so could Hillary.
Matlock concluded the lecture
with the following quote from Senator J. William Fulbright:
Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence.
"... There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted Part III of my series this morning on the turbines. ..."
"... do something ..."
"... " Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination." ..."
Germany's Siemens said on Monday at least two of its gas turbines had been moved "against
its will" from Russia to Crimea, a region subject to sanctions barring EU firms providing it with
energy technology
Siemens, which has repeatedly insisted it was not aware the turbines were destined for Crimea,
said it would press criminal charges against those responsible for diverting the turbines .
Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to
return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination. It said it was evaluating what
additional actions were possible.
#####
Is this a PR/face saving stunt? Where exactly are they going to file charges, Moscow, Berlin
or Brussels. Maybe if they string it out until after Merkel's re-election they can gently let
it drop. Otherwise, they could always just f/k off and leave Russia. Now that would be good for
their business. I don't see them being among approved bidders for Russian projects in future.
There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted
Part III of my series this morning on the turbines.
And wouldn't you know it, Prof.
Robinson posted a comment on my blog with a link to a lenta piece claiming that the turbines ARE
in fact of native Russian manufacture!
(Something which I tend to doubt, but I'll look into this .)
Anyhow, now I'm as confused as a hare at a dog show, and I don't know what to believe any more.
I'll continue my posts tomorrow, but taking the lenta link into account.
Bottom line: Somebody out there is lying – GASP! Either the turbines are German, or they're
not! And either the Germans knew the turbines were destined for Crimea, or they didn't know! And
either the Russians are lying about the turbines being of native Russian manufacture, or .
Perhaps they are Siemens products manufactured to Siemens specifications in Russia, under license.
That's far from uncommon, although I'm not sure to what extent it is done in Russia. But we know
it is, because Russia intended to buy only the first two MISTRAL Class assault carriers from France
– until the US State Department stepped in and fucked everything up for everybody, including and
mostly France – and build the second pair in Russia.
I'm pretty confident that they are pissed off they have to do anything, just because somebody
blew the whistle. They have no choice now, they have to act or it will just snowball, with hysterical
reporters roaring that Siemens isn't going to do anything when are they going to
do something ??
Siemens is, of course, the builder of the Velaro high-speed train used in Russia, where it
is called the Sapsan , or Peregrine Falcon. Russia bought 240 trains, 1,200 cars, and
– most importantly –
awarded Siemens a 40-year contract for preventive and all other maintenance . I doubt very
much if they will jeopardize that over a couple of gas turbines. But the yapping press must be
appeased.
Siemens has no legal case. Just like no car manufacturer controls what you do with your car (e.g.
who you sell it to), Siemens has no control over its turbines in the aftermarket.
"Technopromexport bought four unfinished turbine assemblies on the secondary market and had
them rebuilt and modernized."
Does not sound like these are brand new, fully assembled systems. BTW, Siemens has zero control
over its products after they are sold. Perhaps if Russian law recognized some contract term that
resale or rebuilding was forbidden then Siemens would have a case. Siemens would have no case
in Russia based on contract laws in other jurisdictions and has to lump whatever Russian law dishes
out. You can see similar limitations on warranties for products in North America: different states
and provinces control warranties differently. Also, I have never heard of contract terms for any
non-military product that impose such draconian limitations. Russia ***bought*** these aftermarket
turbines and not leased them from Siemens.
That sounds like an end-user agreement. Under such an agreement, the purchaser must notify the
seller prior to reselling the item to any third party. That usually happens with defense-related
equipment or proprietary technology which the vendor fears will be reverse-engineered. As far
as I know there is no reason to believe such an agreement was in force, and if it were the entity
in trouble would not be Russia, but the country which sold them to Russia. In that case it was
very likely to have been Germany itself.
" Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to
return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination."
The highly anticipated encounter of the two presidents went better, much better than anybody
predicted. There was a lot of anxiety, and expectations were low as heavy rain clouds,
especially after Trump's visit to Warsaw where he obediently repeated the Cold War platitudes
dictated by his minders. Trump had been sent off to Hamburg by Washington establishment with
warnings a convent novice gets before an unfortunate but unavoidable meeting with a Don Juan.
They didn't trust the inexperienced youngster, and insisted he should speak with Vlad only in
presence of
grown ups , like Auntie Fiona (Hill) or Uncle HR (McMaster), well known for their aversion
to Russians.
They warned him that, short of a nuclear strike, every other reaction will be considered
betrayal of the Shining City upon a Hill. Every neocon and Cold Warrior in the West gave his
advice to the President, how should he humiliate Putin and put him on his place, below the
salt. They actually didn't allow Trump to have a proper meeting with Putin, with full agenda,
advisers and ministers, preferably a few days long, in a Camp David format or similar.
...On Ukraine, the presidents agreed to establish a special bilateral channel of
communications between the US special envoy and his Russian counterpart. They also confirmed
their faith in the Minsk agreements, and this is an important diplomatic achievement for the
Russians. However, these agreements did not prevent Kiev troops shelling the cities of
Donbass.
In the light of the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, there has been much talk about the clouding
of US-Russian relations.
Some
voices in the Internet's alternative media sections have conjured the possibility that these
conflicts might lead to a new major war, while social networks like
Twitter saw the usage of the hashtags #WorldWarIII and #WorldWar3 explode after Turkey shot down
a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet in the vicinity of the Syrian border. Headlines in mainstream media outlets
like Foreign
Policy and the
Guardian also proclaimed, "Welcome to Cold War III" and asked "are we going back to the
bad old days?".
This article suggests that although the ideological division of the Cold War ended de facto with
the collapse of the Soviet Union, American geopolitical schemes to contain Russian power abroad have
never really been abandoned. Throughout the 1990s and until today, US policymakers have been determined
to wage overt or covert proxy wars with the aim of curbing its former adversary's political, economic,
and military influence. Chechnya, Ukraine, and Syria are the key spots where the logic of this second
Cold War is played out.
A short glance over the state of the world today and its representation in the media suffices
to identify a growing number of actual and potential centers of conflicts: Civil war is raging in
parts of Ukraine, military tensions are growing in the South Chinese Sea, and the Middle East is
more of a mess than ever. Nonetheless,
some have suggested that the actual number of armed conflicts has actually reached a historical
low. But this assertion is solely based on statistical preference. It is
true that interstate (conflicts between two or more states) wars are on the decline. Instead,
wars today are much more likely to take the form of intrastate conflicts between governments and
insurgents, rather than national armies fighting over territory. As demonstrated to an outstanding
degree in Syria, these conflicts are more and more internationalized and involve a bulk of non-state
actors and countries who try to reach their goals through proxies rather than direct involvement,
which would require "boots on the ground."
But let's start at the end. The end of the Cold War, that is. The situation during the years of
systemic antagonism between the Eastern and Western Blocs has sometimes been captured in the image
of three separate "worlds": the capitalist First World, the socialist Second World, and a Third World.
The latter term was not used as a marker for impoverishment and instability as it is commonly understood
today, but as a postcolonial alternative "third way" for those newly independent states that struggled
to avoid their renewed absorption by the two towering ideological empires. One strategy through which
developing countries attempted to duck the neocolonial policies of the Cold War Blocs was by founding
the informal Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) in 1961, initiated by India, Indonesia, Egypt, Ghana, and
Yugoslavia. Counting 120 members as of now!in fact a large part of the global South!the movement's
anti-imperialist and anti-colonial stance has lost much of its bargaining power after the end of
the Cold War.
Still, the final document
of the movement's 1998 summit in Durban, South Africa suggests that the end of the long-standing
bipolar power configuration has by no means led to the betterment of those countries' situation.
Unipolar American dominance and the collapse of the Soviet Union instigated what was understood to
be "a worrisome and damaging uni-polarity in political and military terms that is conducive to further
inequality and injustice and, therefore, to a more complex and disquieting world situation." This
analysis turned out to be correct in many respects, particularly concerning the period of the 1990s.
While the Clinton years of domestic prosperity saw the US economy achieve the rarity of a budget
surplus, the citizens of its erstwhile antagonist were (probably with the exception of
Boris Yeltsin ) experiencing
the more sobering effects of Russia's political and economic paradigm shift. Democratic Russia struggled
to consolidate its deeply shaken economy in an environment ripe with organized crime, crippling corruption,
and under the doubtful patronage of oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky who controlled the influential
television channel ORT and whom Ron Unz in "
Our American Pravda
" described as "the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s."
The actual situation in the former Soviet heartland during the 1990s was utterly different from
what American elites and media often depicted as a "golden age" of newfound democracy and a ballooning
private sector. From the perspective of many US elites, the country's plundering by oligarchs, ruthless
criminal gangs, kleptocratic politicians, and corrupt military officers was welcomed as a convenient,
self-fulfilling mechanism to permanently destabilize its mortally wounded adversary. But Russia never
completed all the
stages
of collapse , not least because Yeltsin's successor Vladimir Putin eventually took legal action
to put such "businessmen" like Roman Abramovich and Berezovsky out of business. The latter was forced
to seek refuge in London, from where he threatened to use his £850m private fortune to plot "
a new Russian
revolution " and violently remove his former protégé from the Kremlin.
The chaotic and aimless term of the alcoholic Yeltsin is often regarded as a chiefly positive
time in which the East and the West closed ranks, although politicians and neoconservative think
tanks in reality conducted the political and economic sellout of Russia during these years. The presidency
of Vladimir Putin, while anything but perfect and with its own set of domestic issues, still managed
to halt the nation's downward spiral in many areas. Nevertheless, it is persistently depicted by
Western elites and their "Pravda" as dubious, "authoritarian," and semi-democratic at best.
Thus, in spite of Francis Fukuyama's triumphalist proclamation of the "End of History" after the
fall of the Berlin wall that supposedly heralded the universal rein of liberal democracy, the legacy
of the Cold War is anything but behind us. Ostensibly, the current geopolitical situation with its
fragmented, oblique, and often contradictory constellations and fault lines is utterly different
from the much more straightforward Cold War dualism. Of the Marxist ideology only insular traces
remain today, watered down and institutionalized in China, exploited in a system of nationalistic
iconography in Cuba, and arranged around an absurdly twisted personality cult in North Korea. As
of 2015, Russia is an utterly capitalistic nation, highly integrated in the globalized economy and
particularly interdependent with the members of the European economic zone. Its military clout and
budget (
$52 billion ) are dwarfed by US military spending of
$598.5 billion in 2015. Even more importantly, after 1991 Russia had to close down or abandon
many of its important bases, ports and other military installations as a result of the NATO's eastward
expansion.
Nevertheless, the sheer size of its territory and its command of a substantial nuclear weapon
arsenal cement Russia's role as a primary threat to American national interests. This is illustrated
by the fact that for three and a half decades the US has covertly supported radical Islamic movements
with the goal to permanently destabilize the Russian state by entrapping it in a succession of messy
and virtually unwinnable conflicts. Pursued openly during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, this
scheme continued to be employed throughout the 1990s during both Chechen Wars, as well as in Russia's
so-called "near abroad" spheres of influence: Dagestan, Ingushetia, South Ossetia, and other former
Soviet vassal republics in the Caucasus, which have constantly suffered from extremists who exploit
the lack of governmental pervasion in their remote mountain regions. These regions are home to over
25 million ethnic Russians and important components of the country's economy. After the Soviet-Afghan
War and the CIA's buildup of Osama bin-Laden's "resistance fighters," American policymakers recognized
the destabilizing potential inherent in the volatile political and sectarian configurations in the
Islamic countries that encircle the post-Soviet Russian borderlands.
Hence, despite many political ceremonies, pledges of cooperation, and the opening of Moscow's
first McDonalds in 1990, this policy was never fully abandoned. As a matter of fact, peaceful political
coexistence and economic convergence never were the primary goals. Democratic Russia with its allies,
military potential, and possible Eurasian trade agreements that threaten to isolate or hamper US
hegemony was and still is considered a menace to American ambitions of unipolar, universal dominance.
Since the First Chechen War in 1994, Russia's prolonged struggle against Islamic terrorism has
for the most part been disregarded by Western media. Particularly after 9/11, the "war on terror"
acted like a black hole that sucked up the bulk of the Western media's attention. When the acts of
terrorism on Russian soil became too horrifying to ignore!the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis
and the 2004 Beslan school siege in particular!the massive death tolls were blamed on the drastic
responses of Russian security forces who were not adequately prepared and overwhelmed by the vicious
and meticulously planned attacks. In Beslan, the death of hundreds of innocents (186 children were
murdered on their first day at school) was indirectly
condoned
and sardonically depicted as the consequences of the "separatist movement [and its] increasingly
desperate attempts to break Russia's stranglehold on its home turf." Truly, to describe those who
shoot children in front of their parents and vice versa as "separatists" and glorify them as "rebels"
who act in self defense against an "authoritarian" regime demands a very special kind of callous
apathy.
In a 2013
article that examined the Chechen descent of the suspects behind the Boston Marathon bombing,
retired FBI agent and 2002
Time Person of the Year Coleen Rowley exposed "how the Chechen 'terrorists' proved useful to
the U.S. in keeping pressure on the Russians." She explicitly refers to a 2004 Guardian piece by John
Laughland, in which the author connects the anti-Russian sentiments in the BBC and CNN coverage of
the Beslan massacre to the influence of one particular organization, the American Committee for Peace
in Chechnya (ACPC), whose list of members reads like "a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives
who so enthusastically (sic) support the 'war on terror,'" among them Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams,
James Woolsey, and Frank Gaffney. Laughland describes the ACPC as an organization that
heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's
Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights
violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable
"Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo – implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus
can stabilise the situation there.
There are three key elements in the organization's lobbying strategy to denigrate Russia and promote
an intervention in Chechnya that serve to unmask a larger pattern behind the US foreign policy after
9/11. First, the labeling of a particular leader or government as "authoritarian" or in some other
way "undemocratic" (Vladimir Putin, in this case). Second, the concept of an oppressed yet positively
connoted population that strives for freedom and democracy (Chechen terrorists with
ties to a-Qaeda , in this case). Finally, the stressing of "human rights violations" that warrant
an intervention or economic embargo.
If all of these conditions are satisfied, the violation of the borders of a sovereign state is
seen as justified (UN mandate not needed), enabling the US to emerge as a knight in shining armor
and champion of human rights, bolting to the rescue of the world's downtrodden, while covertly achieving
an utterly different goal: To further the logic of a second Cold War through proxy warfare and weaken
Russian by diminishing its foothold in its surrounding "near abroad" regions, which in many respects
represent vital interests, both economically and strategically.
Swap out names and dates and it becomes evident that the same tripartite strategy was used to
justify every recent intervention of the US and other NATO members, in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011),
and Syria (since 2011). Interventions that were legitimized under the banner of humanitarian relief
through the removal of "authoritarian" tyrants and supposed dictators and which have resulted in
the deaths of an estimated 500,000 people,
in Iraq alone . When the ASPC's made its appeal regarding Chechnya in 2004, mind you, only one
year had passed since the Abu Ghraib torture photos were leaked and two years since the first inmates
arrived in the extralegal detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
Regarding the sweltering conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region, the key dynamics are similar. President
Viktor Yanukovych,
accused by the Euromaidan movement!fueled by aggressive US and EU media propaganda and enticed
with promises of lucrative NATO and EU memberships!of "abusing power" and "violation of human rights,"
was forced to resign and replaced with a ultranationalist, anti-Russian and pro-Western government.
Again, this campaign had nothing to do with actual humanitarian relief or concerns about the country's
democratic integrity. Instead, the hopes of a whole generation for a better future under Western
influence were exploited by US policymakers who hoped to stifle Russia's geostrategic elbowroom by
ousting the naval bases of its Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea.
These bases, mostly located in the city of Sevastopol, have been the home port of the Russian
navy for over 230 years, and are vital because they provide the only direct access to the Black Sea
and (through the Bosporus strait in Turkey) to the Mediterranean. Any expansion of NATO towards these
bases had to be regarded as a direct threat, leaving the Russian government practically no choice
but to protect them with all means necessary. However, in the stories emanating from Western mainstream
media, these bases were showcased as an occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory and used as proof
of Russia's aggressive, "authoritarian," and imperial aspirations. In reality, Ukraine and Russia
signed a Partition Contract in 1997, in which the Ukraine agreed to lease major parts of its facilities
to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017, for an annual payment of $98 million.
Along the lines of the
currently revitalized genre of alternate history, let's briefly indulge in the notion that we
were still living in the ideologically divided world of the Cold War, in which the Warsaw Pact still
existed. For a second, imagine if Mexico or Guatemala or Canada expressed their desire to join said
pact and invited its troops to conduct
military exercises at their shared border with the US. Even without the existence of an American
naval base in that country, how do you think the US would react to such a scenario? Would it stand
by idly and let itself be surrounded by its adversaries? For an even more striking parallel, take
the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The American military actually has a naval base there!Guantanamo
Bay, home to the infamous detention camp. Many historians see the deployment of Soviet missiles and
troops on the island as the closest that humanity ever came to entering World War III and mutually
assured destruction (MAD). With its support for "regime change" in Ukraine and extension of the NATO
to the Russian borders, the US today is engaged in the same old Cold War superpower games that the
Soviets played in Cuba 53 years ago. In fact, we should think of Ukraine as being situated in Mother
Russia's "backyard."
Thousands of miles away from the coasts of North America, the Middle East is the region that Uncle
Sam seems to regard as his very own backyard. Many consider George W. Bush's "War on Terror"
after 9/11 and the subsequent interventions in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) Afghanistan as those
catastrophic policy decisions that resulted in the sociopolitical destabilization of large parts
of this region, resulting in the death, injury, and displacement of millions. In Iraq, Libya, and
Syria, the spurious US rhetorical agenda of removing "tyrants" and endowing the local demographics
with the liberating gift of democracy has in fact produced vast ungoverned spaces where militant
groups like the al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL,
or
Daesh ) were able to carve out their "caliphates" and claim other territorial prices. For a long
time, the rapid expansion of the Islamic State and its death-loving,
apocalyptic ideology was resisted only by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the paramilitary National
Defense Forces (NDF), and Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG). The SAA alone has lost
as much as 200,000 soldiers in its struggle against various terrorist factions since March 2011.
US politicians and media have
expressed their hopes that the Russian intervention to assist the Syrian government in its resistance
against these Western, Saudi, and Turkey-backed groups will result in a military and economic debacle,
comparable to the Soviet-Afghan war, which lasted well over nine years. It was during the course
of this brutal and protracted conflict that US policymakers realized that there was really no need
to shed American blood in order to deal the death blow to the Soviet Union. They drew their lessons
from the CIA's countless ventures in South American "nation building," where a government's legitimacy
and an opposition's status as either terrorists or freedom fighters depended on their usefulness
for American national interests, often accoutered in pithy terms like the "war on drugs."
Since the days of Pablo Escobar, however, US foreign policy has shifted its main focus towards
the Middle East, where the long-term goal has been to weaken the enemies of Israel and strengthen
the enemies of Iran. Other goals are to guarantee American access to oil and other natural resources,
to establish
military bases and consolidate the network of troops abroad, and to secure arms deals for the
one-percenters who preside over what president Eisenhower cautioned his nation about in his farewell
address: the "military-industrial complex." As a consequence of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Obama administration has shifted its strategy towards aerial and drone only warfare combined
with the support and (illusion of) control over local militant factions.
Among the many groups fighting in Syria, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), also known as "moderate rebels,"
is the US faction of choice. Much like the bin Laden's Mujahideen fighters in 1980s Afghanistan,
they are
armed with the help of the CIA . In spite of their apparent moderation, however, a wealth of
evidence suggests that this group is directly responsible for a multitude of
massacres ,
mass executions , the
ethnic cleansing of non-Sunni citizens, and
eating the hearts of their fallen
enemies .
The FSA has also been a suspect in the 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks, which some have claimed the
US used as a false flag operation to engender international support for the violent removal of the
Syrian government. The subsequent UN investigation however failed to establish any conclusive evidence
concerning the perpetrator of the war crime and concluded that the sarin gas used in the attacks
had most certainly been removed from government arsenals. Based on this information,
US, UK, and French leaders and media outlets insisted that the Syrian government had to be the
culprit, and immediately pressed the international community to support an intervention with the
goal of eradicating Syria's alleged arsenal of nerve gas and other potential WMDs. This all begins
to sound very familiar. Of course, they also requested the bolstering of the "moderate opposition."
Interestingly, though, the
official UN report , "careful not to blame either side," let on that investigators were actually
being accompanied by rebel leaders at all times. Moreover, they repeatedly encountered "individuals
[ ] carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and
possibly manipulated." On page 13, the report goes on to state that
[a] leader of the local opposition forces [ ] was identified and requested to take 'custody'
of the Mission [ ] to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access
to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission [ ].
Recently, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have protested that their "moderate rebels" were being targeted
unjustly by Russian airstrikes in Syria, complaining that "from their [i.e., the Kremlin's] perspective,
they're all terrorists." Sometimes, one is inclined to advise them, it can be wise and healthy to
assume an outsider's perspective and check if your reality still coincides with the facts that so
many know are true about the FSA. These facts can be broken down to a very short yet concise formula:
If it looks like a terrorist, if it talks like a terrorist, if it behaves like a terrorist!it probably
is a terrorist.
Instead, the CIA is still supplying the "activists" with outdated-yet-deadly weapons from Army
surplus inventories, including hundreds of BGM-71 TOW (" T ube-launched, O ptically
tracked, W ire-guided") anti-tank missile systems, which the terrorists use against
hard and
soft targets alike. The
same weapon platform can be seen in action in a
recent FSA video that shows
the destruction of a Russian helicopter that was sent to extract the Russian pilots at the crash
site of their downed Su-24 plane on November 24, 2015. On the same day, another US-supplied TOW missile
was used in an ambush targeting
a car occupied by RT news journalists Roman Kosarev, Sargon Hadaya, and TASS reporter Alexander Yelistratov
in Syria's Latakia province.
The FSA and other groups, branded as "moderates" who fight against the "authoritarian" forces
of tyranny (just like a certain " Saudi businessman
" back in the day), function as US proxies in Syria, just like al-Qaeda did in the heyday of
the Soviet-Afghan War. They are dangerously unstable pawns in a global strategy to secure American
and Israeli interests in the Middle East, irrespective of the millionfold suffering and uprooting
of entire societies caused by their crimes, the majority of which is directed towards other Muslims.
Commenting on the Russian military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government, Mr.
Obama said that he had no interest in turning this civil war into a proxy war between Russia and
the United States, emphasizing that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest." But this is
exactly what US foreign policy, both Republican and Democrat, has done, starting with the end of
the Soviet Union and lasting until this very moment. The only difference now being that the Libya-proven
rhetorical strategy of (illegal and mandate-less) intervention via "no-fly zones," "humanitarianism,"
and "regime change" did not have the desired effect in Syria because Iran, Lebanon, and Russia did
not abandon their ally. Their combined effort succeeded in fending off an unprecedented onslaught
of extremists that infiltrated the country, often across the Southern Turkish border, armed with
the money of American taxpayers and Wahhabi sheiks.
The Syrian conflict can no longer be described as a civil war. It may have started as one during
the ill-fated "Arab Spring" of 2011, when armed "protesters" (i.e., FSA terrorists)
murdered several policemen and set government buildings on fire in Daraa, provoking a violent
backlash from government forces. The ensuing nationwide chaos was spun by the Western mainstream
media troika
, namely
those
media
outlets that serve as propaganda tools for the US political and financial elites and who fabricated
the myth of the tyrant who massacred peaceful protestors!to be readily sucked up by their indoctrinated
clientele.
As a result of the "moderate's" recent setbacks, the official American position, insofar as its
mixed messages can be deciphered,
has boiled down to a butt-hurt attitude and passive aggressive lecturing about how to distinguish
between varying degrees of moderation among mass-murdering lunatics. Outmaneuvered and publicly exposed,
all that is left for Mr. Obama seems to be to pick up the pieces and save some face by accepting
Mr. Putin's offer to join a united front against terrorism in Syria. But such a step seems unthinkable
in this ongoing Cold War between Russia and the US. Instead, the most powerful man on earth talks
about climate change as the most pressing problem of our times. When it comes to ISIS, he has said
he wanted to "contain" them. Meanwhile, tensions are rising as Turkish president Erdogan, on an power
trip after his surprising landslide victory in November's general elections, apparently collaborated
with ISIS and risked provoking an NATO Article 5 response by downing a Russian Su-24. On the other
side of the equation, Russia's decision to intervene on behalf of the Syrian government reveals a
twofold strategy: On the one hand, trough its direct action it positions the Putin government as
being opposed to the fatal logics of proxy warfare. On the other hand, it simultaneously exposes
the catastrophic flaws of Mr. Obama's strategies in Syria and the Middle East.
All these developments do not necessarily mean that we are heading for World War III!although
logic dictates that it will happen at some point in the future. In reality, though, a full-on
nuclear confrontation would require a massive unraveling of the still sufficiently functional channels
of political cooperation and interstate diplomacy. International security and economic communities
as well as overlapping alliances like the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, and BRIC all indicate a high
level of international integration.
Nonetheless, the geopolitical decisions of the last years herald the start of a new period in
political history that indeed corresponds to a Cold War constellation. Particularly US foreign policy
is currently undergoing the revival of a more offensive realism, visible in recent demonstrations
of power in NATO's Eastern border states, pushing of the TPP agreement in the Pacific economic area,
and aggressive
patrolling of the South Chinese Sea. In fact, the avoidance of superpower confrontation at all
costs seems to increasingly take a back seat these high-risk maneuvers.
In the late 1940s the first Cold War began as a war of the words when the powers who had together
defeated Nazi Germany started to level criticism at their respective global policies. With the help
of their media and propaganda sources, their different stances and perspectives solidified and eventually
developed into monolithic ideologies. These in turn spawned the geopolitical doctrines that warranted
the replacement of any open (i.e., nuclear) confrontation with confined proxy wars as in Korea, Vietnam,
and Afghanistan. A similar erosion of mutual trust, respect, and solidarity is taking place now as
the outsourced US-Russian conflicts in Ukraine and Syria remain unsolved. Again, the second Cold
War arises as a war of the words while negative sentiments are allowed to petrify and the glacial
rhetorics of mistrust and veiled threats gradually begin to replace talk about common interests and
cooperation. The influential and policy-shaping Foreign Affairs magazine already struck the
right chords of the passive-aggressive Cold War parlance by
titling , "Putin's Game of Chicken: And How the West Can Win."
At the end of the day, this exact attitude could be one of the reasons why the US might come out
on the losing side of this conflict. Because they have not yet realized this is not a "game of chicken"
anymore. In fact, this is no longer the same easy game of manipulation that the US played during
the 1990s by throwing cheap shots at a collapsing state. The deployment of its air force in Syria
is not least a signal to the American establishment that Russia in 2015 no longer stands at the sidelines
and watches begrudgingly as the US and its allies commence their disastrous policies in the Middle
East.
When Mr. Obama asserted that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest," he therefore either
told a lie or he demonstrated his government's utter cluelessness with regard to the actual situation
and consequences of their actions in Ukraine, Syria, the South Chinese Sea, and other hotspots of
the second Cold War. Both possibilities do not bode well for the future.
Steffen A. Wöll is currently enrolled in the American Studies Master's program
at Leipzig University. His research interests include foreign policy, the Middle East, popular culture,
as well as radical millennialist and environmentalist movements in the US. RSS
Category:
Foreign Policy , History
Tags: Middle East ,
New Cold War ,
Russia ,
Ukraine Recently
from Author
"They drew their lessons from the CIA's countless ventures in South American "nation building,"
where a government's legitimacy and an opposition's status as either terrorists or freedom fighters
depended on their usefulness for American national interests, often accoutered in pithy terms
like the "war on drugs."
Thank you. In a nutshell, the phenomenon of terrorism and self serving idea of "nation building"
have been clarified .
On a different note -Memory of Checehn terrorism has become somewhat foggy distant and distorted
. Checehn terrorist have always enjoyed enormous goodwill and support in Poland,US and UK . But
at the onset when Dudayev was the secessionist leader , it was still a unarmed nonviolent political
process with mutual (Russian and Checehnyan) disagreement .
It has been suggested that the same forces who later supported Checehn terrorism also provoked
Yeltsin to mount unnecessary attacks on Chechen .
A nice article by a German (I am guessing). So different then what comes from the US.
My impression is that the Turkish military intervention under the cover of the US, UK and French
airforces in Syria is imminent (within three months or less). The EU already gave Turkey Euro3B,
supposedly for the refugees, but probably to pay its military for the attack on Syria.
It will be most interesting to see if the Iraqi Government will rescind the military forces
agreement with US and request both Turkey and US to leave Iraq, then call Russia in to help eject
the Turks from Iraq. This may complicate the Turkish military intervention in Syria, but is unlikely
to stop it.
When Mr. Obama asserted that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest," he therefore
either told a lie or he demonstrated his government's utter cluelessness with regard to the
actual situation and consequences of their actions in Ukraine, Syria, the South Chinese Sea,
and other hotspots of the second Cold War
Obama is very comfortable with lying. Or better said, Obama is an accomplished liar. 'Grand
Chessboard' author Brzezinski is still Obama's man on the inside:
Brzezinski in fact acted as the lead political advisor on foreign affairs to President
Obama during his 2008 campaign and is still unofficially advising him on foreign policy today
Good overall assessment. One improvement would be to point out a recent development with revelations
it had been Erdogan's people (Turkey) carried out the 2013 Ghouta sarin gas attack in Syria (blamed
on Assad) that killed well over 1,000 ordinary Syrians:
Nevertheless, the sheer size of its territory and its command of a substantial nuclear weapon
arsenal cement Russia's role as a primary threat to American national interests.
national interests? or hegemonic agenda of domination of the planet? what all of this boils down to is the US and the west are today Israeli's bitch. That's why
the US destroyed Iraq and that's why NATO destroyed Libya and they're working on Syria, because
Saddam and Gadhafi were obstacles not friendly to Israel and because Israel wants the Golan Heights,
respectively. None of these countries were any threat to America's interests. Hardly. Any suggestion
that they were is ill-informed, or worse.
This is not a proxy war between the US and Russia. It's a proxy war between Israel and the
rest of the planet, with Israel using the US and NATO as their proxies against Putin's Russia
as the first real obstacle to their hegemonic designs. Resistance had to come from somewhere if
we're not all going to live as Palestinians, and Putin was simply the blade of grass that would
not bend to their will, like all the rest of them do since it's easy to destroy third world countries
and send them reeling into the stone age (Afghaistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria..), or even better if
they're controlled by corrupt quisling politicians to begin with (US, NATO, ). Putin may be corrupt,
but he's also a nationalist and actually cares about Russia and has nukes. So that's why
he is the obstacle.
what's going on now is Bibi (Zionism) and Putin (sanity and hope for the world) are pretending
that this isn't a proxy war between the two of them. And the rest of the world is pretending too
(like this article demonstrates). One day when Bibi and his crew decide that NATO has to go directly
to war with Russia in order to achieve their goals, what I suspect will happen is that the pretense
will drop, and the men and agendas behind all of these Machiavellian intrigues will be forced
out into the open. And I suspect what will happen then is the threat of a kind of reverse Samson
Option, with Putin (and the rest of the free world [ironically NOT the dying and corrupt west])
telling Bibi (actually the rabid, ultra-Orthodox Jews in the Knesset who tell Bibi what to do)
, that if it comes to NATO vs. Russia, that the first one to go will be the state behind it all.
Sort of like in those Western movies when the good guy points his shotgun at the guts of the powerful
bad guy with all his gunslingers around, and says 'you'll get it first', and then the rich and
powerful bad guy says 'take it easy fellas, holster those guns'. Sort of like that I suppose.
And the world will enter into a new kind of MAD. And there will be the peace.
Seymour Hersh absolutely demonstrated that the Sarin attack in Ghouta was a false flag operation,
and that the chemical composition of the gas did not match that stockpiled by Syria when analyzed
by the UK defense laboratory Porton Down.
@KA I'm too young to remember coverage of the Chechen wars, but my local library still has
several books which paint the Chechens in a sympathetic light.
The best English language book on the subject is Robert W. Schaefer's The Insurgency in Chechnya
and the North Caucasus: From Gazavat to Jihad, but it's expensive and was never in wide circulation
AFAIK.
There's a lot of weird things about Chechnya that aren't talked about at all aside from a handful
of conspiracy theory type web sites – even though they merit interest. There's more info on runet
but I'm not sure I have the chops to evaluate how good the sources are.
@Bill Jones They're not counting the debt. The debt is something that's just there and never
changes, except to go up. They take it as given. Imagine you've had $5,000 in credit card debt
for years and receive a $100 bonus from work. You might not even think about using it to pay off
your debt. You simply think, "Awesome, I have an extra $100 this week!" That's pretty much the
mindset.
I'm constantly surprised when I hear people talk about the nation going broke, or specific
programs, like Social Security for instance, running out of money. Hello! We've been broke for
a long time. What do you think the national debt is? As far as SS is concerned, I suppose, it's
pure ignorance of how things work. They think it's a self-contained system (which what they want
you to think, even if that means it's doomed to go bust, because it tricks people into thinking
the Welfare State is part of the social contract, or something). As for the rest of the budget,
how do people not notice? Because it's turned into background noise.
@guest I agree. The drive by the establishment for ever increasing immigration is driven their
lust to drive wages down but also to maintain the illusion that the various State Ponzi schemes
can maintain themselves.
That the idea that the US and Europe can be turned into comfortable retirement homes staffed
and paid for by pleasant and obeisant, productive and well assimilated pig ignorant fleeing peasants
is astonishing, yet that's what we are asked to believe.
@Rurik Thanks god that Israel is relatively close to the Russian Federation. At some point,
the incessant provocations against Russia could become suicidal for the Israelis. Lets hope that
Zionists value their lives more than their quest for mythical Great Israel.
@Cracker Not so simple. The empire of Federal Reserve will continue demanding a pound of flesh
from everyone. The parasitoids have been quite successful at hollowing out the US and they are
ready for "doing" Russia.
http://thesaker.is/russia-in-an-invisible-war/
"Of the Marxist ideology only insular traces remain today " You forgot to add the anti-white
efforts on college campuses today. These are real and ever present and brush against the grain
of Russian and Chinese nationalist efforts as well as a coherent American identity that transcends
racial divides including HBD. Richard Rorty's essay on the "Unpatriotic Academy" is always worth
re-reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/13/opinion/the-unpatriotic-academy.html
A good president is one who can lie and be believed.
No, that's merely an accomplished liar, it doesn't necessarily make a good president. Maybe
you're conflating 'good' with 'effective'
Does Obama's lies about the USA upholding 'the rule of law' even as he has been much more effective
at dismantling (supposedly constitutionally protected) American civil liberties than Bush Jr's
administration, make him a good president? No, it simply makes him effective at dismantling civil
liberties, example given.
Then, Obamacare made #1 on Moyer's lies list, ahead of Bush & Cheney:
Wasn't industry right there to shepherd the process of health care 'reform'? You bet they were.
Did Obama's lies on healthcare reform make Obama a good president? No, it made him an effective
tool for the health industry.
@Lepanto Those aren't Marxist. "Cultural Marxism" is a complete misnomer. Dividing the working
classes along ethnic lines keeps them impotent. It is a ruling class strategy.
Actually, in many ways this is a Hot War, not a Cold one
Look at the new pattern. The State Dept underwrites and supports a neo-fascist coup on Russia's
border in Kiev. Putin responds by seizing Crimea and abetting the rebellion in the Donbass Region.
Sanctions are enforced against Russia, Putin openly provides military assistance to Syria. Now
today Putin orders immediate retaliation against any attacks against the Russian military. Meanwhile
the US, UK, France and Germany begin military actions in the Syrian Theater, ultimately threatening
partition.. Turkey occupies part of Iraq Iraq requests Russian aid China weighs in on the Syrian
situation.
This is definitely a path towards escalation, with a genuine chance of military conflict between
the Russian/ Iranian/ Syrian forces and NATO forces. That's HOT the opposite of Cold War miceo-maneuvers.
In China, following the US Pivot , and support for Tibetan and Uighur independence, China claims
the S. China Sea and starts building island reefs. The US crosses over international boundaries
surrounding these islands again HOT WAR escalation. ..
with a chance any of these rising conflicts could escalate into a REALLY HOT thermonuclear
confrontation, just the way the Cuban Missile did
@Giuseppe It was such a ho-hum effort; the bored, deadpan US officials barely seemed to have
convinced themselves. You don't need an ingenious cloak-and-dagger operation when no one's paying
attention and no one cares.
Good article. I take it by the description that the author is a graduate student and thus relatively
young. If so then they're starting out quite clear-eyed and objective, things that usually take
years of living to acquire.
The US is an aggressive and expansionist empire and has been so since it consolidated itself continentally,
had it's Civil War, dealt with the internal problem of the Indian population, and then embarked
on foreign acquisitions starting with the Spanish-American war where it seized Spanish possessions
and inserted itself into Asia via the Philippines. It's pretty much been on the march since then,
always probing for weakness and opportunity to move in. It's somewhat analogous to the Austro-Hungarian
empire, outwardly expansionist even as the stitches holding the seams together started to fray
and weaken. They started off boldly but no one in 1914 could foresee what 1918 would look like.
Unfortunately the US seems to have some inner momentum driving it thus which doesn't seem as if
it's path could be altered, at least not in the short run. Many people question how much power
the president actually has in being able to effect a change of course. Could be he has less than
popularly supposed.
Most people agree the US is deteriorating internally. A quick and short read would be Sir John
Glubb's " The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival", available free on the internet. There's
many points of similarity, it'll have a familiar ring to it.
"... Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world." ..."
"... When American or European voters calculate that war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt. ..."
"... Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today, but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed to see the light). ..."
"... There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent pose against the US. ..."
"... Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war. ..."
"... State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality. ..."
"... No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities, privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets. ..."
"... The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed, leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind. ..."
"... Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section? ..."
"... My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty. ..."
"... ,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues, the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers. Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play, at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy. ..."
"... This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state. ..."
Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment
strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather
the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic
strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West
in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world."
In war, feats of courage, while awarded medals after the event, are usually irrationally motivated
when they happen. Instead of courage to understand, Hellevig may mean something more like cost-benefit
analysis, as performed in the minds of voters. When American or European voters calculate that
war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards
Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt.
Hellevig doesn't have a programme for that as much as a programme for changing hearts and minds
in the policy-making centres of Moscow. Here are his recommendations:
"All further privatization, based on the failed globalist liberal ideology, must be rejected and
instead Russia must strengthen state ownership in key branches of the economy, in order to build
globally competitive national champions." "Russia's highly successful import substitution program
[must continue]. This is the kind of thing Russia must continue to invest in, but not forgetting
to heed our advice, that state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries."
"Russia must also speed up investments in transport and other public infrastructure as well as
investment in urban renewal and amelioration programs, in the way it has been done in Moscow."
"Cut interest rates. In a bewildering policy motivated by inflation targeting, the Russian Central
Bank has inflicted record high real interest on the economy ever since end of 2015. Presently
the primary real interest rate stands at a stunning 5%. This is an unprecedented situation in
a global comparison. On the contrary, the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have
fought against recession by bringing the real interest rates to historical lows, even to negative
territory. Without this excessive austerity the Russian economy would have fared yet much betters,
especially so the consumer Both charts show that the birth rates have fallen with high real interest
rates. The Central Bank therefore must take urgent measures to reduce the gap before the situation
worsens further."
Who does Hellevig think, from Putin on down, believes these things, or is even willing to consider
the case for them?
Sergei Glazyev is obvious, but he is window-dressing in the Kremlin wall. Not one of his policy
recommendations has been adopted, nor even endorsed in public by the president; for details,
click to open . Instead, Glazyev is treated to public dressing-downs from Putin's spokesman,
Dmity Peskov. Glazyev, to be sure, is a prickly, vain character with a voice pitch that compares
unfavourably to chalk across a blackboard. Those are not disqualifications for his ideas.
In his latest presentation on the economy, Putin sounded all of Hellevig's findings, with the
exception of the imports-to-GDP ratio and surpassing Germany. However, Putin committed to none of
Hellevig's recommendations. For the full text of the president's June 15 "Direct Line" broadcast,
read this . Addressing
the criticism of Central Bank interest rate policy – the only Russian target Hellevig explicitly
attacks -- Putin agreed with the critics; he also agreed with the Central Bank.
"I very much hope that the Central Bank continues to move cautiously towards reducing the key
interest rate," Putin started.
"Why has the Central Bank adopted such a cautious approach? Unfortunately, the Russian economy
still depends on oil and gas. The price of natural gas depends on the price of oil, and a special
formula is used to calculate it. The price of oil has recently exceeded $50, and today it is only
$48, I think. The Central Bank believes that if it declines, the key interest rate would have to
be adjusted. What matters most for us right now is not the key interest rate itself, but avoiding
any sharp fluctuations in the key interest rate. We need to ensure a stable exchange rate for our
national currency, the ruble. This is what underpins the Central Bank's cautious approach. Some may
like it, others may not. I am simply trying to explain the Central Bank's logic. It deserves respect."
Left to right: Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina; Finance Minister Anton Siluanov; ex-Finance
Minister, Putin adviser and patron of the other two, Alexei Kudrin, at their own SPIEF session, June
16, 2016
So who else is Hellewig addressing with the new report? The regrettable answer is noone in particular.
Russia's enemies are in for a long war, Hellevig acknowledges himself. US Congress action to finalize
the new sanctions bill may come this month, even before the August summer recess; for details of
the new Russian targets and US weapons to be deployed, according to the new statute, read
this . A veto by President Trump is unlikely because there are two-thirds majorities in the Senate
and House of Representatives to override.
So Hellevig's "What Doesn't Kill You" is a report in a vacuum unless it is convincing in the domestic
producers' market, and in foreign investor markets.
Sentiment for the future of the Russian economy is measurable in what Russians with cash and capital
say they plan to do. If they are producing, shipping, buying and selling more, that will show in
growth rates for electricity consumption, cargo tonnage moved on railroads, and the flow of cash
and capital goods inward and outward. The latest measures of the electricity and rail indicators
show single-digit growth upon the depressed base numbers prevailing last year. However, the numbers
for capital outflow, including Russian businessmen on the run, are also growing. The closer you get
to the individuals who are moving their cash abroad, the less confidence in the future you hear.
From the regular monthly polling of confidence in the future on the part of Russian businesses,
it's clear there is less optimism than Hellevig's: the score last month remained negative, as it
had been in April and May. The minus-1 score wasn't as bad as last December, but at minus-8 even
that was nowhere near as bad as the all-time low in measured Russian business confidence – minus-20
in 2008. For more details, read
this .
The sentiment of foreign investors should be estimated differently. The long money goes into Russian
debt; the short or hot money is in Russian equity. Normally, they move in parallel. But for confidence
in Russian bonds and confidence in Russian shares, the trend lines this year have been running in
opposite directions. By the end of June, foreign buying of Russian debt issues rose sharply, compared
to April and May, with an aggregate of $2.8 billion invested last month. For shares the situation
has been the reverse. Funds holding Russian shares have been selling steadily for the past four months,
and $1.6 billion has been withdrawn over this period,
according to EPFR Global.
Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly
explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially
to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post
Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither
liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are
different flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that delivers
the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets.
Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism
razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue -- and this
is why Medicare for All is always first with me -- is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from
despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count
makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering
and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics -- even the worthy fight to help the refugees
Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created -- bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration
with the news flow -- currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine
campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in
the State and in the press -- a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard
as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts
or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also
very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for
voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility
creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes
all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical
level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen
years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.
Regarding the Spirit of NATO: I'm reminded of the discussion in "The Guns of August" about
the French attitude, in the generation leading up to WW I, toward the war they were planning.
Lots of General Staff activity, including jockeying for position as the One who would Rule Them
All, and the reliance on a supposed "national psyche" of "attack, attack, attack" to be rendered
victorious by the Superior Elan of the Nation and its forces.
Don't forget the British calls (around 1910-1913) for a "little war" that would be quickly
over – once we showed those Germans who's the boss Didn't quite work out that way. The viciousness
with which Germany was punished after WWI hid a lot of French and British (unacknowledged) guilt.
It is bloody unbelievable that 100 yrs after that war (plus WWII), the West is still warmongering.
China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project – lest there'll be
nothing left to change.
But of course, out of it all, a marvelous new tradition and industrial base, Krupp and Fokker
and the British and French and Scandinavian, etc. armaments industry, and the inventive new fonancialists
that enabled it all and all that nationalist patriotic fervor! And Bernays, too!
"A certain amount of killing has always been a concomitant of business "
Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously
advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's
*The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today,
but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for
all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed
to see the light).
There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient
with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent
pose against the US.
Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence
in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that
has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war.
"China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project"
From reading a lot of Finian Cunningham and Willem Middelkoop, it appears that is exactly what
is happening.
"Hellevig's point deserves repeating -- the Russian economy is far more diversified than the
enemy thinks. "
Hellevig calls the west "our western partners" but Helmer above is calling who the "enemy"?
and enemy to whom? From Helmer's perspective that doesn't make sense. Is Helmer American? His
first paragraph is equally confusing. Is Helmer recommending that a country under Economic Threat
by a Stronger power hide economic gains, or the opposite ?
Hellevig: "state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries."
Doesn't sound like good advice to me. Some subsidies for important fledgling industries sound
like a better idea, like solar for instance.
State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless
junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality.
The truth is that liberalized economies have never been able to compete in the world and never
will be.
Or we can all change our names to "Galt." Voluntarily, or by corporatist/financialist fiat.
Actually seems to be well under way.
Of course the Galtians do want just that precise amount of "regulation," to be provided by
Philosopher Galts from within the monopoly (sic) on the use of force, just the precise amount
that's needed to make the Galtian system work, and to monopolize the government-protected freedom
to loot and cadge subsidies and rents from the rest of us, and make us eat their externalities
Working so well so far, isn't it? Checked the outside air temperature and habitability indexes
around the place lately? But those who profit from skills at looting and rentier-ing kvetch about
the "government" they pervert for personal advantage -- nice to have it both ways.
Let us mopes never try to figure out how to have a "government" that embodies both "civil"
and "service," one that's not immediately captured and twisted by Kochs and Musks and other Robber
Barons. So hard to do, when one has the funhouse-mirror image of the Magna Carta as one of the
Holy Texts
No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities,
privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's
the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets.
"incapable of competing in the international markets": you say that as if it's a Bad Thing
? And that all the "competition" does not, to greater or lesser degree, manifest every one of
those supposed noncompetitive "weaknesses" of failings?
The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed,
leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind.
I got what he was saying, I think, and if it was not irony, then my point is that all those
bad things Hiho cites are happening everywhere, to one degree or another, under neoliberal-neocon
globalization. All part of the global race to the bottom, which I believe each of the presumed
"bad things" cited by Hiho are part and parcel of. With the burden of militarized attempts to
achieve Full Spectrum Dominance laid on top, though it sure is not clear, given the ascendancy
of post-supra-national corporations and wealth concentration in the hands of Supra-state individuals
with no national ties or loyalties, "cui bono" from that effort.
One wonders who and what the Received Wisdom of pursuit of imperial autarky-hegemony and "global
competitiveness"might be expected to benefit
And the outcome, the industrial output, of the global system-as-it-is seems demonstrably to
be killing the habitability of the planet. And of importance to us "top predators," the "comfort"
and sustainability of our own brittle species
More of the same gets you exactly what, again? Minute local short-term Elites and their self-indulgences,
who seem to have the "feudalism creation" process well under way, for their personal benefit ?
You need to address this particular article and not engage in a drive-by attack. You apparently
can't find anything wrong but don't like where this goes. This piece makes clear it depends on
a single source and Helmer has written it up. So what, pray tell, is hard to understand about
that?
Our Richard Smith writes about scammers and his articles are similarly difficult because the
relations among players and mechanisms are complex. That is often why Helmer's articles are dense:
he's dealing with lots of material from sources with their own motives.
Yves, thank you for adding that. I took "Carey" to be a kind of FUD-peddling troll. Can't let
people start thinking well of folks like Helmer, now can they? Got to impeach whenever there's
the chance.
Of course I could have it all wrong, and "Carey" was commenting in all sincerity In faceless
bitspace, it's so hard to know
Glad to see you defending Helmer. He very often comes up with some pretty good insights. But
my God he is sometime difficult to follow. Someone who makes the reader work that hard just might
be able to use a good copy editor. But, on the other hand,he does make one think.
Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish
and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase
Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his
article posted in today's NC Links section?
To what extent has the growing economic relationship between Russia and China reduced the effectiveness
of US sanctions on Russia and indirectly led to derivative policy blowback with potentially damaging
implications for the US, such as loss of petrodollar hegemony to the Chinese yuan? China is now
putting pressure on the Saudis to accept payment for oil in yuan by using China's oil imports
from Russia as negotiating leverage.
Seems like an awful lot of ignorance and miscalculation by the usual suspects to me.
My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about
ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other
import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were
afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian
people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty.
To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and
sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance
with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section?
I'll add that -- as far as I can tell, at least -- there's almost never any news about this issue
in the three chief political establishment outlets (NYT, WaPo, and WSJ). You'd think that the
editors of those papers regard the nascent Russia-China strategic partnership as verboten. Something
unmentionable.
Helllevig's report is unabashedly pro – Putin so that doesn't gel too well with Helmer – a
consistent, if generally fair critic.
Hard to know what the essential point of Helmer's take on the report really is – a warning
against perceived Russian hubris vis a vis NATO?
Wariness of Glazeyev's proposed reforms? Contrary to Helmer, I believe they have not been adopted
not because they are perceived to be wrong, but because they are currently too radical for the
Russian economy – still very much part of the global system. (Though the SWIFT expulsion threat
was challenged vigorously, and a Sino – Russian alternative is being put in place, it would have
caused havoc if it had gone ahead.)
The impression that he's a 'narcissistic' attention – w***é is a new one on me Maybe Helmer
is buddies with Kudrin, your standard market ideologue and a dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal (despite
his organisation of financial reserves to cushion the effects of sanctions, he is not ideologically
a threat to current Western dogma.)
Or is Helmer uneasy at the prospect of major power nationalising it's central bank?
All in all, a rather rum rumination.
Best read the full report until Helmer publishes an article offering more clarity on his own
perspective.
I've said in passing that the West expected its sanctions to bring Russia to its knees. They've
now been on for years. Even though GDP took a hit, the impact appears to be markedly less than
what we inflicted on ourselves in the financial crisis, in part because Russia engaged in a muscular
response (such as improving domestic industries, like cheese making, where they had chosen before
to be significantly dependent on imports). And the sanctions also didn't hurt Putin's popularity,
in fact they increased it. Even the Moscow intelligensia went quiet for a good year plus. And
Putin brought a big increase in living standards. The GDP reduction is a blip compared to where
Russia was circa the late 1990s.
So while Helllevig may be overegging the pudding, it's accurate to say that the sanctions didn't
damage Russia anywhere near as much as the West hoped.
One issue is all the reports I can find easily (thanks to Google crapification) list GDP in
$ terms. I'd like to see a GDP series in rouble terms, since that's what matters to Russians,
particularly since Russia isn't a huge importer.
I did find a report at Barrons which is relatively bullish on Russia, although not at bullish
as Hellevig, based on World Bank forecasts:
Russia's economy can expand at a 1.3% pace in 2017 and by 1.4% in 2018 and 2019, the World
Bank said Tuesday.
The ruble is strengthening today, up 0.7% against the U.S. dollar, and Russian equities
are rallying in Moscow. The VanEck Vectors Russia exchange-traded fund (RSX) is higher by 0.5%
this morning, as are the U.S.-traded shares of Sberbank Rossia (SBRCY). Moody's Investors Service
projected slightly higher GDP growth of 1.5% this year and next, but maintained its junk rating
on Russian government bonds Monday.
Another statistic that goes unnoticed in the USA is the extent to which Russia is an outlier
among the world's major economies. Where debt/GDP ratios in the US are 107% along with basket
state countries like Italy and Greece, Russia is nearly debt free at 17%!by far the lowest in
the world for a major industrial power.
Looks like the military-industrial state war hawks better make sure that the US can continue
to impose the dollar as the world reserve currency!–. All those new SUV's purchased with 7 year
loans will get pretty thirsty if the US has to earn the money to import the fuel to run them instead
of just having the FED create the money with a key stroke.
,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports
and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues,
the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth
in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over
the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still
substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from
oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the
economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order
to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the
one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers.
Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors
and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have
supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play,
at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy.
Given the fortuitous results the sanctions have allegedly produced are we to presume Vlad the
Impaler (of Political Opponents and Truth Seeking Journalists) spent some time this past week
lobbying for their continuation?
On the one hand I agree we have plenty of interests in common. And if the Russian people are
content with rule by the siloviki they should be allowed that. We should think long and hard however
before accepting the insinuation of their model into our own imbalanced and (hopefully) evolving
system. That WAS the implication of the piece wasn't it? Or did I miss a reference to a downside
of kleptocracy.
IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage
a government and economy of openness and participation.
BTW: Someone should write a piece looking at the similarities between Putin's agitation of
the Orthodox Church to his own advantage and Donald's winning over of the Christian Right in this
country.
"IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage
a government and economy of openness and participation."
So Regime Change and All the Openness and Participation the US always brings? And that is your
Long Play?
> Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy.
Perhaps said reference was omitted in deference to the readership, who labor under our own
journalist-persecuting kleptocracy and do not need a reminder.
The fall in the Russian economy was brought on by the oil price collapse not the sanctions.
In a perverse kind of way the US then forced on Russia a kind of Trumpian make Russia great again
set of policies through sanctions which unexpectedly led to an industrial rebirth which fully
offset the oil price collapse, if the west had really wanted to undermine Russia then the best
way would have been to encourage capital flight by helping the debauched overseas fantasies of
the oligarchs they targeted.
I have often said that sanctions only put up prices, based on what I know has occurred historically,
but Yves exposes a further risk in one of her comments. France had a share of the cheese market
in Russia until she was persuaded to cease supplying. Since then domestic producers have made
many of the cheeses France used to supply. That market has likely gone for France. Trade is trade,
war is war. We should try not to confuse the two.
It is worse than that. Remember those two Mistral-class ships that the French built for the
Russian navy until, under pressure from NATO, they reneged on those contracts and were forced
to pay a heavy penalty? Now anybody that has contracts with France, particularly military contracts,
will have to wonder if France will honour those contracts if put under enough pressure.
Business hates uncertainty and so you wonder how many contracts France has lost since it proved
to be an unreliable business partner.
Come to think of it, our mob has signed a $50 billion contract with France for 12 you-bewt
submarines. I wonder if-
A- That was under pressure by others to compensate France for the loss of the Mistral contracts
and
B- That was why the insistence of the subs being built in Adelaide. Not only for local jobs
but also to ensure that there would be no future funny business about actual delivery. Hmmm
When I hear about Congress demanding sanctions, I visualize John McCain sputtering. So much
of what passes for those great deliberations seems to be in effect more kayfabe. They produce
what they think the public expects, as filtered through their minders on K Street, in the media
and elsewhere.
Sanctions can be productive, when used thoughtfully and with limited scope. In the present context,
there does not appear to be much thought given the ongoing "Russians Hacked, dammit" looped commentary.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/53/1/012018/pdf
The problems and prospects of the public–private partnership in the Russian fuel and energy sector
SM Nikitenko1,3 and EV Goosen1,2
1Federal Research Center for Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Kemerovo, Russia
2Kemerovo State University, Kemerovo, Russia
3Kemerovo Institute (Branch) of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
Kemerovo, Russia
This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The
analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the
Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth
in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include
budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship,
the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state.
"... It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see. ..."
"... what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. ..."
It's likely that Trump is mind controlled since his seemingly core opinions and attitudes can
reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably
unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State
controllers.
I don't know about that. His expressing contrary opinions could be interpreted as his having
some independence--a hopeful thing. It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying
what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is
right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see.
A case can be made that the so called deep state is committing treason on a daily basis. Unfortunately
its constituent parts are stronger than the President and his allies.
what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. They
both love israel. if you look carefully you can see the strings
ARG Asia
I did know "Deep State" was powerful, but I had no idea they could do whatever they wanted and
interfere in nearly every of President Trump staff members with the exemption of the former Goldman
Sachs appointees. Is the US really a democracy?
Here in Asia we see the US bullying and revolver diplomacy has insulted many countries, not
only the Philippines. If the US want to have a future in Asia they have to be more respectful,
stop interfering in domestic issues, and stop all these regimes change attempts.
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited
an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to
scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that
his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media
outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously
false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.
A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press
when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community
had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.
"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were
the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now
reports
. "The rest were doing other work."
Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently
reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.
"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him
get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working
under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.
A few days later, the Associated Press
echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly
blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.
The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections
at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.
The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable
truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.
"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact
wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies,"
CNN blared .
The New York Times
took
it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading"
narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads
on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."
But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance
of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest
echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political
operatives and anonymous "officials."
Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from
the top.
The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few
weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies
that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report
incorrectly claiming there are
19 intelligence agencies).
She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt
to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.
"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere
in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks,
these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply
disturbing."
Trump took the bait.
"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated
over and over in the press as evidence
he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our
country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."
With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.
Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And
the fact checks came rolling in.
The New York Times
,
Politico ,
ABC News ,
Politifact and PBS
all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number
with authority in its reporting, saying
in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."
The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate
talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.
"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from
the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line
in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.
Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now
framed it as common
knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military
and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"
The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a
particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."
All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes,
the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list
of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.
The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence
organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under
DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless
a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.
That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down
at the speed of common sense and Google.
Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate
agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of
the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately
reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.
Nevertheless, the claim persisted.
"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump
in
an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"
"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the
contrary," the Daily Beast
reported
that same day .
NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget
in
a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting
report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.
"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But
since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning
was clear."
Reuters, too, touted the number
in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.
The declassified DNI report that followed in January
provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion
was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times
conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)
A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing
about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.
"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence
community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting
the record.
"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And
we all know how that's right."
Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly
involved in this assessment, plus my office."
"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.
"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a
special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."
So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that
none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they,
since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?
At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report
made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.
Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim
in an interview
with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.
"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in
agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence'
that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."
A little while later the bogus claim
showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation
fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then
twice
more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well
in a June
11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim,
which was rather strangely corrected four days later.
After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta
actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where
does that number come from?" Acosta asked.
The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying
Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially
doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim
mostly false in a separate fact check.
So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking
point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than
six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly
reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.
We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters --
proved
more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia
investigation.
The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's
conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.
Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the
news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally
coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.
The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.
Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30."
Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out
to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.
In a report casting
the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe.
The White House refuted the anecdote
in no uncertain terms
the following day.
Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That
was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement
the grid
definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an
infected site on a work computer.
CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey
would
refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such
thing. In fact he
corroborated Trump's account .
Just weeks after retracting a story
on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their
first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course,
it was wrong
. One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.
We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian
meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled
in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should
be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.
The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.
Wishful thinking. What was so rational in launching Tomahawk missiles against Syrian airbase on fake
charges? Even on DNC hacking charges Trump moves closer to neocon views. And Polish speach
has nothing to do with detente with Russia. The fact that Haley is UN ambassador in
Trump administration demonstrates that quite well.
Notable quotes:
"... Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed. ..."
"... I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life! „Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st... ..."
"... If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously. ..."
It was pleasing to see Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin greet each other cordially at the G20
summit. After their breakthrough first meeting, one hopes the two leaders have a personal
foundation for future cooperation.
At a later press conference in Hamburg, where the G20
summit was held, Russian President Vladimir Putin
said
he
believed there was a chance for restoring the badly frayed US-Russia relations. He praised
Trump for being thoughtful and rational. "The TV Trump is quite different from the real life
one," quipped Putin.
Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement hailing the two-hour discussion (
four times longer than originally scheduled
) between the two leaders as a good start to
working together on major world problems.
"No problems were solved. Nobody expected any problems to be solved in that meeting. But it
was a beginning of a dialogue on some tough problem sets that we'll begin now to work on
together,"
said
HR
McMaster, Trump's top national security adviser.
Trump deserves credit for the way he conducted himself. He met Putin on equal terms and with
respect. "It's an honor to meet you," said the American president as he extended a
handshake.
The much-anticipated encounter comes nearly seven months after Trump was inaugurated in the
White House. Over that period, large sections of the US media have run an unrelenting campaign
accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge and alleging that Putin ordered an interference
operation in last year's US election to benefit Trump.
Apart from innuendo and anonymous US
intelligence claims, recycled endlessly by dutiful news organizations, there is no evidence of
either Trump-Russia collusion or Putin-sanctioned
cyber
hacking
. Trump has dismissed the claims as "fake news", while Moscow has consistently
rejected the allegations as baseless Russophobia.
... ... ...
Under immense pressure, Trump has at times appeared to buckle to the US political
establishment with regard to projecting hostility towards Russia, as seen in the prosecution of
the covert war in Syria and renewed sanctions on Moscow.
The day before he met Putin in Germany, Trump was in Poland where he delivered a barnstorming
speech in Warsaw in which he accused Russia of "destabilizing countries", among other topics.
The American president also inferred that Russia was undermining "Western civilization". It was
provocative speech bordering on hackneyed Russophobia. It did not bode well for his imminent
meeting with Putin. A clash seemed to be coming, just as the US media had been cajoling.
... ... ...
Immediately following the constructive meeting between the leaders, the US media started
cranking up the Russophobia again. The US media are vents for Deep State hostility towards Trump
and his agenda for normalizing relations with Moscow.
The New York Times reported another breathless story about Trump's election campaign having
contact with "Kremlin-connected" people. CNN ran opinion pieces on how the president had fallen
into a trap laid by Putin.
It is hard to stomach this outlandish confabulation that passes for journalism. And it is
astounding that a friendly meeting between leaders of nuclear powers should not be received as a
good development.
But it shows that Trump his up against very powerful deep forces within the US establishment
who do not want a normalization with Russia. The US Deep State depends on confrontation, war and
endless militarism for its existence. It also wants a world populated by vassals over which US
corporations have suzerainty. An independent Russia or China or any other foreign power cannot
be tolerated because that upends American ambitions for unipolar hegemony.
... ... ...
President John F Kennedy was assassinated in broad daylight by the US Deep State because he
dared to seek a normalization and peaceful coexistence with Moscow. The Deep State does not want
normalization or peace with Russia or anyone else for that matter because there are too many
lucrative vested interests in maintaining the war machine that is American capitalism.
... ... ...
What needs to change is the US power structure through a democratic revolt. Until that
happens, any president in the White House is simply a hostage to the dark forces of the Deep
State.
lisacarso
· 9 hours ago
Yes they are indeed.
Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing
to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for
his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed.
Schlüter
· 6 hours ago
I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US
Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life!
„Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games":
https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st...
follyofwar
· 5 hours ago
If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a
great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki
Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin
cannot be taken seriously.
chris · 5 hours ago
Trump as victim? You have to be kidding.
He IS the president,he actually could get out on the White House lawn and blow the
whistle,or at least 'tweet' sneakily. World leader? At least post 'Don't do stupid shit.'
Obama had the temerity to refer to the Kennedy option'.This guy doesn't seem to lose any
sleep over the many thousands of deaths worldwide,including Americans, giving their lives
because Trump saw the job as a business opportunity.
And his dumb subjects run around blaming 'the Jews' [sounds like 1930's Germany doesn't
it?]
"... The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations. ..."
The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg
evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the
US President for his conduct during negotiations.
At least several
prominent newspapers took a dim view of President Trump's handling of this meeting, claiming
that the Russian leader apparently managed to outplay and outsmart his US counterpart.
For example,
Die Welt
stated that it was clear to all professional observers that the meeting resulted
in Trump's capitulation.
In an apparent effort to underscore Trump's relative inexperience in foreign affairs, the
newspaper claims that the "political pro" Putin knocked out the newbie US President "by the
book."
The article's author also emphasized the fact that Putin paused for a moment before shaking
Trump's already extended hand.
The
Guardian
adds that while US politicians apparently felt relieved that Trump managed to
avoid "a major gaffe" during the meeting, it was "hardly cause for celebration."
"It's an indication of how rapidly our standards are falling when we're reasonably pleased
that President Trump has not made an obvious error," Thomas Countryman, former US acting
undersecretary for arms control and international security, remarked.
Anyone who has followed the ongoing crisis
in Eastern Europe and Ukraine knows the very hostile view that the
establishment news media and Washington political class have of President
Vladimir Putin of Russia and his policies. In the halls of Congress and in
the mainstream press!almost every night on Fox News!serious charges are
proffered against Russia's president and his latest outrages. Sanctions and
bellicose measures get enacted by the House and Senate overwhelmingly, with
only meagre opposition and almost no serious discussion.
The mainstream American media and American
political leaders seem intent to present only a one-sided, very negative
picture of the Russian leader.
Various allegations are continually and
repeatedly expressed.
How do these charges stand up under
serious examination? What is their origin? And, what do they say about the
current political and cultural environment in America and the West?
The allegations against Putin can be
summarized in five major points:
Putin is a KGB thug and is surrounded by KGB thugs;
Under Putin the Russian Orthodox Church continues to be controlled by
KGB types;
Putin wants to reassemble the old Soviet Union, and he believes that
the break-up of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century;
Putin is corrupt and has amassed billions of rubles personally
skimmed off the top of the weak Russian economy;
And he is an anti-democratic authoritarian who persecutes
homosexuals, in particular.
The charges against Putin go from
disingenuous to the dishonest. The "KGB thug" and the "break-up" of the USSR
accusations have been addressed in a variety of well-researched books and
in-depth articles. The documentation contradicts these allegations,
including some charges that have been made by usually conservative voices.
It is extremely curious that such ostensibly conservative publications as
The New American
, for example, find themselves parroting accusations
first made by notorious leftwing publicists and, then, by international gay
rights supporters.
On the contrary, various historians and
researchers, including Professor Allen C. Lynch (in his excellent study,
Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft,
2011), Professor Michael Stuermer
(in his volume,
Putin and the Rise of Russia,
2008), M. S. King (in
The War Against Putin,
2014), Reagan ambassador to the USSR Jack
Matlock, Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts,
former Congressman Ron Paul (his web site,
www.ronpaulinstitute.org
, contains numerous scholarly articles defending
Putin), Reagan budget director David Stockman, and conservative writer
William Lind!none of these men on the Left!have pointed out that those
allegations have been ripped out of context and are largely untenable.
Additionally, numerous conservative religious authors have investigated and
defended Putin, including Catholic journalists such as Michael Matt in
The Remnant
, Dr. E. Michael Jones in
Culture Wars
, Dr. Joseph
Pearce in
The St. Austin Review
, and Gary Potter, and writers for
conservative Protestant organizations like the
Gospel Defense League
. Nevertheless, the charges made against Putin are
presented as fact by many Neoconservative "talking heads" on Fox (e.g.,
Charles Krauthammer) and on talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck), as
well as by the Leftist establishment media. Disinformation is clearly at
work here, even among some of the strongest voices on the American right.
Professor Lynch reveals in his detailed
study that the evidence for the "Putin KGB thug" allegation is very thin and
lacks substantial basis. First, Putin was never "head of the KGB," as some
writers mistakenly (and, often, maliciously) assert. That is simply a
falsehood. Rather, he served as a mid-level intelligence bureaucrat who sat
at a desk in Dresden, East Germany, where he was stationed with his family
for several years before returning to Leningrad. His job was to analyze
data, and he had no involvement in other activities. [Lynch, pp. 19-21]
Contemporary American intelligence reports confirm this fact. Indeed, this
was one of the reasons that early on, during 1990 and 1991, Putin was
considered a hopeful figure among the generation of younger Russians by
American intelligence sources.
After the fall of Communism during the
administration of Boris Yeltsin, he very briefly served at Yeltsin's request
as head of the FSB intelligence service. But the FSB is not the KGB.
Lynch treats in some detail the question
of Putin's supposed continued subservience to KGB ideology, with particular
reference to the events surrounding the abortive Communist coup by the old
hands at the KGB in August 1991. Putin, by that time, had resigned his
position in the KGB and was serving as deputy mayor to pro-American
Leningrad mayor, Anatoly Sobchak, one of the fiercest critics of the KGB and
the old Soviet system. It was Putin who organized the local Leningrad
militia to
oppose
the attempted KGB coup and protect Mayor Sobchak
and the forces of democratic reform:
Putin played a key role in saving
Leningrad for the democrats. The coup, which lasted but three days, was
carried out on August 19. That same day Mayor Sobchak arrived on a flight
from Moscow. The Leningrad KGB, which supported the coup, planned to
arrest Sobchak immediately upon landing. Putin got word of the plan and
took decisive and preemptive action: He organized a handful of loyal
troops and met Sobchak at the airport, driving the car right up to the
plane's exit ramp. The KGB turned back, not wishing to risk an open
confrontation with Sobchak's armed entourage [led by Putin]." [Lynch, p.
34]
This signal failure in Russia's second
city doomed the attempted KGB coup and assured the final collapse of the
Soviet system and eventual transition of Russia away from Communism. It was
Vladimir Putin, then, who was largely responsible for
defeating
and
preventing the return of Communism in Russia. It is very hard to see how a
secret supporter of the KGB would take such action, if he were actually
favoring the return of Communism.
As Professor Lynch recounts:
Putin accepted the irreversibility of
the Soviet Union's collapse and came to terms with the market and private
property as the proper foundations of the Russian economy. [Lynch, p.28]
It is true that Putin lamented the
break-up of the old Soviet Union, but not because he regretted the
disappearance of the Soviets, but, rather, because of the numerous and
intimate economic, linguistic, social, and cultural connections that
interrelated most of the fifteen constituent republics of the old USSR. His
comments on the topic were very clear, but have been selectively taken out
of context by the Putin haters. [See the book-length interview with Putin,
with comments from other Russian leaders,
First Person: An Astonishing
Frank Self-Portrait by Russia's President Vladimir Putin
, New York,
2000, pp. 165-190]
Much like the break-up of the
Austro-Hungarian empire after World War I, which left significant ethnic
minorities cut off from their historic former homelands -- for example,
millions of Austro-German Sudetens in Czechoslovakia, Hungarian
Transylvanians in Romania, etc. -- and a number of economically non-viable
states in the Balkans, the dissolution of the Soviet Union created the same
situation in Eastern Europe. The present intractable crisis in Ukraine is a
clear example of what can happen and has happened as a result. It was this
situation that Putin rightly lamented; it was this break-up that he foresaw
correctly as a tragedy.
The much-criticized!by the American
press!secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its subsequent re-union with
Russia clearly illustrates this. What too many so-called "experts" in
America fail to understand (or, if they do, skillfully omit in their
reports) is that Crimea was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years
until Communist Nikita Khrushchev sliced it off from Russia and gave it to
Ukraine in 1954, despite the fact that 60% of its population is ethnically
Russian and its culture and language completely Russian. [See the Wikipedia
article, "Crimea"]
Moreover, the Ukrainian "oblasts," or
provinces, of Lugansk and Donetsk, have a similar history and ethno-cultural
make-up. They were arbitrarily added to the Ukrainian socialist republic in
the 1920s after the Communist revolution, despite being historically part of
Mother Russia for centuries.
Interestingly, at the same time Putin made
the "break-up" of the Soviet Russia comment, he visited Poland to denounce
and condemn the Communist massacre and crimes in the Katyn Forest at the
beginning of World War II, as well as the horrid Soviet gulags. On more than
one occasion, especially at the meetings of the international Valdai
Discussion Forum in 2013 and 2014, he has harshly condemned in the strongest
terms Communism and the atrocious crimes committed by Communists. In so
doing, he made extensive reference to Russia's Christian heritage (also
criticizing same sex marriage, abortion, and homosexuality as being "opposed
to the most sacred values of our traditions").
Putin's remarks at the
Valdai Forum in September 2013
, in front of representatives from most
European countries, deserve extensive quoting. Here is some of what he said:
Another serious challenge to Russia's
identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both
foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic
countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the
Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilisation.
They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national,
cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that
equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the
belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness have reached the
point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties
whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are
embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays
are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden
away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to
export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a
direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound
demographic and moral crisis. What else but the loss of the ability to
self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis
facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer
able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration.
Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of
morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose
their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these
values. One must respect every minority's right to be different, but the
rights of the majority must not be put into question.
And Putin gained firm support and
endorsement from that inveterate and most intransigent anti-Communist,
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Before his death in 2008, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin
and stated that he believed Putin's personal acceptance of Christian faith
to be genuine. American ambassador William Burns visited Solzhenitsyn (April
2008) shortly prior to his death and quoted him as stating that under Putin,
the nation was rediscovering what it was to be Russian and Christian. [See
article at
guardian.co.uk
, Thursday, December 2, 2010] The great Russian
anti-Communist also gave a long 2007 interview with the German magazine,
Der Spiegel
,
saying the same thing
. So, then, if the Putin-haters are correct, did
Putin fool the great Solzhenitsyn who was by far the greatest and most
intransigent anti-Communist of the 20
th
century? Not likely.
About the personal corruption charge Lynch
offers substantial detail and discusses how it got going, basically spread
by Putin's liberal opponents. To those who suggest that Putin stood to make
a fortune off his political choices, Lynch (and others) offers substantial
documentation to the contrary:
Putin was not corrupt, at least in the
conventional, venal sense. His modest and frankly unfashionable attire
bespoke a seeming indifference to personal luxury. While as deputy mayor.
He had acquired the use of the summer dacha of the former East German
Consulate and even installed a sauna unit there, but when the house
burned down in the summer of 1996, his $5,000 life's savings burned with
it. To have accumulated only $5,000 in five years as deputy mayor of
Russia's second-largest city and largest port, when hundreds of less
well-placed Russians were enriching themselves on government pickings,
implies something other than pecuniary motives behind Putin's activities
( .) In sum, Putin was honest, certainly by Russian standards. He lived
simply and worked diligently. Accused by a foe of having purchased a
million dollar villa in France, Putin sued for slander and won his case
in court a year later. [Lynch, pp. 33, 35]
Some of the hostility towards Putin
emerged when he became interim president of the Russian Federation after
Boris Yeltsin stepped down in December, 1999. Putin had established himself
as a loyal and forthright political leader since serving as deputy mayor for
the pro-democratic Mayor Sobchak. He had also served Yeltsin faithfully.
But Putin was no Yeltsin. While initially
following the Yeltsin pro-American and pro-Western lead in foreign policy,
Putin was also aware that Russia was undergoing a radical transition from a
decrepit and collapsed Communist state to the recovery of some of its older
traditions, including a mushrooming, vibrant return to traditional Russian
Orthodoxy, a faith which he has publicly and personally embraced. [See
various confirming reports, including Charles Glover, "Putin and the Monk,"
FINANCIAL TIMES Magazine,
January 25, 2013, and
video clip
. During the days of oppressive Communist rule, the Russian
Orthodox Church, at least the official leadership, was subservient to
Marxism, with many of its leaders at least mouthing Communist ideas, if not
serving as agents. The former Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church,
Alexei (who died in 2008), had been criticized as a collaborator with the
Communist regime. However, the so-called "intelligence proof" that suddenly
"appeared" in Estonia stating that he was a secret KGB agent has been placed
in very serious doubt (see Wikipedia, "Patriarch Alexei" article).
Apparently, the "documents" were most likely fabricated and not genuine.
Indeed,as the
Encyclopedia Britannica
in its biography of him
relates, Alexei was "the first patriarch in Soviet history to be chosen
without government pressure; candidates were nominated from the floor, and
the election was conducted by secret ballot." Not only that, after the fall
of Communism, Alexei publicly denounced Communist crimes and called for the
freedom of Christianity in Russia. It became something of a moot point when
Alexei died in 2008; his replacement as head of the Russian church was
Archbishop Kirill, someone who is known for his staunch opposition to
Marxism and his defense of historic Christianity and traditional morality.
As Russian religious scholar Professor
John Garrard exhaustively demonstrates in his excellent study,
Russian
Orthodoxy Resurgent
(2008), from 1991 onwards the Russian Orthodox
Church began a necessary purification, with older collaborators and
Communist agents gradually stepping down or being removed. Today the Russian
Orthodox Church is, by far, the most conservative, traditional and
anti-Communist religious body in the world. It has gone so far as to
canonize dozens of martyrs killed by the Communists and celebrate the
Romanov tsar and his family who were brutally murdered by the Reds in 1918.
Significantly, since 1991 over 26,000 new Christian churches have opened in
Russia, and the fact that Christianity is being reborn in Russia has not
gone unnoticed among some Christian writers in the America and Europe,
although generally ignored by the secular press. [There are numerous
articles and reports chronicling this amazing rebirth, e.g.,
Russia has experienced a spiritual resurrection
,
Catholic Herald
,
October 22, 2014; see also, "Faith Rising in the East, Setting in the West,"
January 29, 2014,
Break Point Commentaries
.
Such a phenomena is not some Communist
plot, but represents a genuine desire on the part of the Russian people to
rediscover their religious roots, ironically just as a majority of American
now seem to embrace same sex marriage, abortion, and the worst extremes of
immorality and the rejection of traditional Christianity.
In support of his goals Putin has
championed Russian laws that: (1) have practically outlawed abortion in
Russia (no abortions after the 12
th
week, and before that time in
limited cases, and also the end of financial support for abortions,
reversing a previous Soviet policy); (2) clamp down on homosexuality and
homosexual propaganda---absolutely no homosexual propaganda in Russian
schools, no public displays of homosexuality, with legal penalties imposed
for violating these laws; (3) strongly support traditional marriage,
especially religious marriage, with financial aid to married couples having
more than two children; (4) have established compulsory religious
instruction in all Russian schools (including instruction in different
Christian confessions, in different regions of the country); (4) implement a
policy instituting chaplaincy in Russian military regiments (and religious
institutions now assist in helping military families); (5) have made
religious holidays now official Russian state holidays; (6) have instituted
a nationwide program of rebuilding churches that were destroyed by the
Communists (the most notable being the historic Church of Christ the Saviour
in Moscow); and (7) officially support the Russian film industry in
producing conservative religious and patriotic movies!interestingly, the
most popular film in Russia in 2009 was the movie "Admiral," a very
favorable biopic of the leader of the White Russian counter-revolutionary,
Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak, who was executed by the Communists in 1920. The
film was
supported
by the Russian cultural ministry. Can we imagine
the American NEH doing anything similar in the current United States? [See
reports,
OneNewsNow.com
, January 23, 2013;
LifeSiteNews
,
October 26, 2011, August 1, 2013; Scott Rose,
Bloomberg News
, June
30, 2013; see also Garrard on some of these actions]
Putin has formed a close association
with Russian Orthodoxy, as Russian rulers typically have across
centuries. He is smart to do so, as Russia has experienced somewhat of a
spiritual revival . Orthodoxy is widely and understandably seen as the
spiritual remedy to the cavernous spiritual vacuum left by over 70
disastrous, often murderous years of Bolshevism. Resurgent religious
traditionalism has fueled Russia's new law against sexual orientation
proselytism to minors and its new anti-abortion law. Both laws also
respond to Russia's demographic struggle with plunging birth rates and
monstrously high abortion rates that date to Soviet rule. Some American
religious conservatives have looked to Russian religious leaders as
allies in international cooperation on pro-family causes.
As the largest nation in the world, with
historic connections to the rest of Europe, but also to Asia, Putin
understood as well that Russia, despite the Communist interlude, was still a
major power to be reckoned with. A reawakened Russian conservative
nationalism and a return to the traditional Orthodox Christian faith did
not, he initially hoped, predetermine an eventual clash with the European
Union nor with the United States.
Indeed, after the 9/11 attack on the "twin
towers" in New York, Putin's Russia was the first nation to offer its full
support to and its cooperation with American intelligence agencies to combat
terrorism and bring the culprits to justice. Having combated Chechen Islamic
terrorism in the Caucasus region, Russia had experience dealing with Islamic
extremism. [Lynch, pp. 100-105; Stuermer, pp. 5-6]
Nevertheless, Bush administration
Neoconservatives basically kicked Russia in the teeth. With their zealous
belief in liberal democracy and global equality, to be
imposed
on
offending nations if need be
,
as Allan Bloom once boasted, they
condescendingly refused Russian collaboration. As leading Neocon publicist
and "talking head," Charles Krauthammer, expressed it, "we now live in a
unipolar world in which there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United
States."
The Neoconservative condescension towards
Russia, first after 9/11, then with the threatened placement of missiles in
Poland, pushing NATO to the very borders of Russia, and finally following
the bungled American diplomatic escapade in Georgia in 2008, cemented a
conviction among Russians and by Vladimir Putin that the desired partnership
with America was unrealizable, at least for the time being. [See Lynch, ch.
6, generally, for a thorough discussion of Russian foreign policy; Stuermer,
pp. 196-199]
The desire for Russia to become a
"collaborative partner" in any kind of situation resembling international
parity was just not acceptable to American Neocons. Whereas Yeltsin had been
welcomed in Washington as "America's poodle," willing to do America's
bidding, Putin believed that the largest nation in the world, which had
thrown off the Communist yoke, merited a larger role. His desire was for a
real partnership. But aggressive attempts spearheaded by the United States
to incorporate formerly integral parts of Russia!areas that were and
continue to be considered within the Russian "sphere of influence," even if
independent!into NATO, largely dashed Russian hopes for partnership with the
West. [Stuermer, pp. 191-196] In 1996 the late George Kennan cautioned the
American foreign policy establishment that expansion of NATO into those
areas "was a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions." Kennan
warned against a foreign policy that was "utopian in its expectation,
legalistic in its concept moralistic and self-righteous." [Robert
Sidelsky,
Kennan's Revenge: Remembering the Reasons for the Cold War
The
Guardian
, April 23, 2014, ] Henry Kissinger echoed this warning on
November 12, 2014, calling in
Der Spiegel
the American response to
Russia "
a
fatal mistake
."
Perhaps it is no coincidence that many of
the present-day Neocon publicists descend from immigrant Jewish Labour
Zionists and inhabitants of the Russian "pale of settlement," who
experienced tsarist pogroms in the late 19
th
century and who
later formed the vanguard of Marxist efforts to overthrow the tsar and
establish a socialist state? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's mammoth study,
Two
Hundred Years Together
(still untranslated into English, although a
French edition exists:
Deux Siecles Ensembles, 1795-1995
, Fayard,
2002), offers fascinating detail on this process. The Socialist
internationalism manifested by those revolutionaries found its incarnation
in Leon Trotsky, murdered at Stalin's orders in Mexico in 1940. Despite the
supposed migration of the Neocons towards the political Right in the 1970s
and 1980s, the globalist and "democratic" legacy of Trotsky remains a
not-so-distant lodestar for many zealous partisans.
At times this paternal reverence continues
to break forth, in unlikely sources. On
National Review Online
, a
few years back, Neoconservative writer Stephen Schwartz wrote:
To my last breath, I will defend
Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid
low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to
Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal
of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had
been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about
the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology.
Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it
what they will." [See Professor Paul Gottfried's commentary on
Takimag.com
, April 17, 2007]
For the American Neocons, the emergence of
a nationalist, Christian, and undemocratic Russia is perhaps too reminiscent
of the "bad old days." And despite very different circumstances, a
non-conforming Russian state demanding any form of parity with the world's
"only remaining superpower" is out of the question.
On the contrary, Boris Yeltsin was a
Neocon favorite. Yeltsin's tenure as president seemed not only to echo a
second-rate "America's poodle" status, his handling of the Russian economy
proved disastrous for the average Russian, but lucrative for a handful of
Russian oligarchs, who in turn were connected to American business
interests. Wikipedia (article on Boris Yeltsin) sums up his actions in this
way:
In 1995, as Yeltsin struggled to
finance Russia's growing foreign debt and gain support from the Russian
business elite for his bid in the early-1996 presidential elections, the
Russian president prepared for a new wave of privatization offering stock
shares in some of Russia's most valuable state enterprises in exchange
for bank loans. The program was promoted as a way of simultaneously
speeding up privatization and ensuring the government a much-needed
infusion of cash for its operating needs.
However, the deals were effectively
giveaways of valuable state assets to a small group of tycoons in finance,
industry, energy, telecommunications, and the media who came to be known as
"
oligarchs
"
in the mid-1990s. This was due to the fact that ordinary people sold their
vouchers for cash. The vouchers were bought out by a small group of
investors. By mid-1996, substantial ownership shares over major firms were
acquired at very low prices by a handful of people.
Boris Berezovsky
, who controlled major stakes in several banks and the
national media, emerged as one of Yeltsin's most prominent backers. Along
with Berezovsky,
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
,
Vladimir Potanin
,
Vladimir Bogdanov
,
Rem Viakhirev
,
Vagit Alekperov
,
Alexander Smolensky
,
Victor Vekselberg
,
Mikhail Fridman
and a few years later
Roman Abramovich
, were habitually mentioned in the media as Russia's
oligarchs.
On his assumption of the presidency and
his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic
domination by "the oligarchs," but in so doing, he antagonized their
internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in
Bruxelles.
During his first term, Putin proved
himself to be a clever and resourceful politician. He organized a powerful
political base, his United Russia political party, and, like most successful
political leaders, was able to parlay his economic successes and a favorable
conclusion to the Chechen civil war into a strong base of support across the
Russian Federation. Criticized by some domestic opponents for not following
punctiliously all the hallmark benchmarks of Western-style "democracy,"
Putin insisted that the difficult path to Russian democracy was different
than that so often pushed (and imposed) by the United States around the
world. Nevertheless, the average Russian citizen experienced more real
liberties and more economic freedom than at any time in Russia's long
history, and the credit for that must be Putin's. [Lynch, pp. 69-74;
Stuermer, pp. 199-200]
The continuing charges that Putin is
corrupt and has surrounded himself with ex-KGBers have as their origin, not
surprisingly, leftist and liberal domestic opponents of the Russian
president in Russia, as Lynch, Paul Craig Roberts, M. S. King, and others
have shown. In fact, most of Putin's advisors lack serious earlier
Communist/KGB involvement. The charges, nevertheless, have been picked up by
the Murdoch media and Neocon press. Just as they had lauded Yeltsin, they
quickly turned on the nationalist Putin, who quickly became in the Western
press a "KGB thug," "corrupt," and desirous of "restoring the old Soviet
Union.
One of the major, if indirect, Russian
domestic sources for the corruption charges comes via a prolific Russian
politician, Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, identified as a "new liberal," is a
longtime opponent of Vladimir Putin and a favorite of John McCain and
various "mainstream conservatives." [See,
"Russians React Badly to U.S. Criticism on Protests,"
The New York
Times
, January 6, 2011] Over the years he has penned a number of
election broadsides and pamphlets, charging Putin with everything from
feathering his own "nest" with "billions of rubles," to election fraud. [See
Nemtsov,
Putin: What 10 Years of Putin Have Brought
, 2010] In each
case, his allegations lack the kind of sources to make them creditable. It
is as if Al Gore were to have written a pamphlet about George W. Bush in the
2000 election: it and its content would immediately be highly suspect.
That some supposedly conservative American
publications and news sources could give these accusations credence just
demonstrates the power of the liberal/left media and the international
anti-Russian homosexual lobby who have tried desperately to propagate such
ideas.
Although the Nemtsov origin for the
constant media barrage is important, in recent months the nature of the
Western opposition to Putin and Russia has been radically transformed. While
Nemtsov's canards certainly have found their way into the Western press,
since Russia's legal prohibitions (in early 2013) against homosexual
propaganda (especially directed towards underage children) and its
forthright defense of the Christian institution of marriage, the vigorous
opposition to Putin has assumed a "moral" dimension, symbolized best,
perhaps, by Obama's appointment of several over-the-hill, openly homosexual
athletes to head the United States delegation to the Sochi Olympics in early
2014.
Such an action demonstrated both the
fundamental rejection by the American leadership (and Western European
leaders) of Russia's affirmation of traditional marriage and traditional
Christianity, while illustrating the formal apostasy by the West from its
own traditional Christian moorings.
Enter Russian-American journalist and
author Masha Gessen. Numerous references to Gessen began to appear last
year, and soon she was appearing as "the Russian authority" on several of
the Sunday morning news programs and as a guest on the Establishment's
special programs dealing with Russia and Ukraine. Repeatedly, she is
identified as "the noted expert and author on Russia and Vladimir Putin."
Her 2012 volume,
The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir
Putin
, has been cited on such programs as "Meet the Press" and "Face the
Nation" as critical to understanding Russia and its president. She is the
most widely-quoted writer on Russia and Putin now in the West.
But just who is Masha Gessen? She is
identified by the Wikipedia (not known for its right wing bias) as a Jewish
lesbian activist, with dual Russian
and
American citizenship (how did
she manage that?), who is "married" to another lesbian, with a "family," but
who advocates the abolition of the "institution of marriage," itself.
She has identified herself as a violent
opponent of Putin and of traditional Christianity. Yet, her book,
The Man
Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin
, is held up as the
best volume on Russia and its president, while even her defenders (writing
reviews on Amazon.com, for instance, and elsewhere) admit that her study
reads like "one, long, impassioned editorial."
Let us add that Gessen is an unrelenting
champion of the Russian lesbian punk rock band, "Pussy Riot," who profaned
the high altar of one of the most sacred churches in Russia, the Church of
Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Her volume,
Words Will Break Cement: The
Passion of Pussy Riot
(2014), is a passionate apologia for that
pornographic lesbian band and a vitriolic attack on both Putin and
traditional Orthodox Christianity, especially the institution of marriage,
which Putin strongly and publicly defends. Her attacks find their way into
the whole spectrum of American opinion, including, sadly, into supposedly
conservative publications. Indeed, many Neoconservatives are remarkably
"soft" on issues surrounding homosexual rights. [See, for example, "Fox News
Goes Gay,"
Christian Newswire
, August 14, 2013; James Kirchick, "Out,
Proud, and Loud: A GOP Nominee Breaks Boundaries,"
The Daily Beast
,
February 18, 2014; Andrew Potts, "Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer
calls gay rights struggle 'heroic',"
Gay Star News
, January 1, 2014 ]
Gessen, then, has now become one major
source for attacks as well as the "analysis" spewed out by the major
networks. As one can see, the real key here increasingly is the issue of
homosexuality and the fact that Putin's Russia defends traditional Christian
ethics and has clamped down on gay propaganda. Gessen finds this
intolerable .thus, even though her journalistic writing purports to take a
researched and scholarly view of Russian affairs, her attacks, the charges
of corruption and anti-democratic tendencies, are all subsumed into
something much more important to this vocal activist: an all-encompassing
passion to advance homosexuality worldwide and an unremitting opposition to
traditional Christianity.
But it is not just a prominent and
influential publicist like Masha Gessen who identifies the issue of
homosexuality as central to the hatred for Putin and contemporary Russia.
Gessen's views are now completely mainstream in the West, illustrated
resoundingly by President Obama's naming of those gay former Olympians to
represent the United States at Sochi. The gesture was unmistakable, but its
symbolism indicated something more profound in the West's post-Christian
mentality. Indeed, this salient aspect of what euphemistically is now called
"defending human rights" underpins EU and American policies towards Russia.
Such organizations as the Human Rights League, People for the American Way,
and the United Nations have gotten involved on a global level,
cementing this template
. In the international political sphere, no
clearer illustration of this pervasive influence on policy may be found than
in the response of close American ally German Chancellor Angela Merkel to
President Putin's criticism of the collapse of traditional Christian
morality in America and Europe.
As reported
by
The Times of London
, November 30, 2014, Merkel,
who had for some time urged a softer approach to Russia and continued
negotiations, finally realized:
that there could be no reconciliation
with Vladimir Putin when she was treated to his hardline views on gay
rights.The German chancellor was deep in one of the 40 conversations she
has had with the Russian president over the past year -- more than the
combined total with David Cameron, François Hollande and Barack Obama --
when he began to rail against the "decadence" of the West. Nothing
exemplified this "decay of values" more than the West's promotion of gay
rights, Putin told her. The Kremlin and instead should adopt a policy of
Cold War-style containment.
And Merkel is not alone. She joins Barack
Obama and prime ministers David Cameron, Francois Hollande, and the leaders
of the EU in expressing this important underlying rationale for Western
policy towards Russia.
It is, then, the formal Western and
American embrace of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and other deviations
from traditional Christian morality as normative that has opened a steep
chasm and motivates zealous proponents, for whom Vladimir Putin and a
revived traditional Russia present a distinct challenge to their eventual
global success.
It is, then, this rebellion against
God-created human nature and against natural law, itself, that is bitterly
opposed to Russia's affirmation of traditional religious belief. It is this
divide now that forms the deepest basis of the profound conflict between
East and West. Indeed, the world has been turned upside down, with Russia
now defending Christianity, while the American and Western political and
media elites viciously attack it. As Patrick Buchanan now rightly asks: "On
whose side is God NOW on?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in
European intellectual history from the Catholic University of Navarra,
Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in American
intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson
Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late
Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as Registrar of the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French,
Spanish, and English on historical subjects as well as classical music and
opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various
historical, archival, and genealogical organizations. Small sections of this
article were originally published on the Communities Digital News website,
April 16, 2014.
Thank you Sir. It is heartening to read such a cogent defence of this
remarkable leader after reading a hit piece in (of all places) the New
Zealand Herald this morning.
One small observation I would like to make. The old "left" and "right"
political labels seem to me no longer relevant to today's dialogue.
Since the 80s an ideology has emerged which I call "the Politics of fear". I
did not coin the term, I borrowed it from a BBC documentary film series,
written and produced by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares – the
rise of the Politics of Fear" – which I heartily recommend to your readers.
The voice-over at the beginning of this series intones something like "our
politicians once offered to make our lives better, now they promise to
protect us from nightmares".
The political divide now seems to be between those who buy into the
nightmares and those who do not, those who (believing in the nightmares)
support military intervention and those who take a longer view.
This ideology, I believe, is the bastard child of the Israel/U.S. affaire. I
say "bastard" as I do not believe that the coupling has the blessing of the
majority of U.S. citizens but is, rather, the product of a rape of the
American political process by the neo-con cabal, ably assisted by a captive
media.
This ideology is now responsible for much of the Middle East now in
smoking ruins, a circumstance that must please Israel no end. Indeed it was
foretold by Oded Yinon (Sharon adviser) back in the eighties. An excerpt:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is
guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even
more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In
the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to
Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall
at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front
against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the
short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking
up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.
-see link below.
Putin of course is in the sights of this ideology as he has some power to
check these assaults and looks like gaining a great deal more as he moves
closer to China. His cardinal sin may be his support for Assad.
Putin's biggest mistake was not creating the fake two party system. America
has given the world many gifts, and our system of party politics is one of
the best for maintaining control of a large nation. If Vlad had followed
this advice, and created the real illusion of democracy in Russia, the West
would have found him much harder to oppose.
Article is by Gessen, and clearly biased against Russia, but I think the idea is still a good
one.
Putin has arguably aged badly as a leader, and considers himself too indispensable, much like
Jiang Zemin in China. Though by Russian standards, he's the best since Alexander II.
Dutch disease is another mark against Russia, which Putin hasn't done much about, and which
arguably makes them more dependent on the West (and possibly China) than they should be.
The article above also doesn't mention Larry Summers, which is a profound insight to which
particular businessmen got away with it.
" On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term,
Putin resolved to end this economic domination by "the oligarchs," but in so
doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West
on Wall Street and in Bruxelles "
Well he won't say it but I will. The
Jews. The Jews were looting Russia and anyone who stops their looting is the
enemy. If the US ever stops the Jews looting of us they will try to do the
same to us.
Right now the Jews control the US like they used to control Russia so
they're using our money and name to attack him. Any country that is in their
way will get the same.
It's possible that they mean to start a nuclear war between the US and
China/Russia. The neglect of our nuclear forces and our bizarre foreign
policy are part of this. Many years ago if someone would have told me that I
would have thought such a thing I would have called them mad. Not now, after
9-11, where building#7, not hit by a plane, fell for around 108 feet at the
same speed as a rock dropped in mid air. It's impossible for fires to have
done this. Now when I see stupid things going on I at least realize that
someone may have planned it that way. Our policy towards Russia is stupid
and the Jews run our policy.
Whatever else may be said about Mr. Putin, what stands out about the man is
that he is clearly and resolutely in favor of Russia, which distinguishes
him starkly from the Americans' current president.
A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone wrong only at the very end
seeing Putin's antipathy towards homosexuality as explaining anything. I at
least haven't and don't see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else our
anti-Putinista's have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights.
So in any event that as an explanatory factor for all the
anti-Putin/anti-Russian agitation seems to me to be a distraction from the
only remaining one which is the neocons, pure and simple. They tried their
agitation against Putin and his (rather Christian) vision of Russia first
back when he took off after those oligarchs, but that mud never stuck to the
wall given the blatant criminality involved on the part of those oligarchs.
Then, they tried it again with that Georgia business, with the facts
again betraying them.
All this Crimean business then is just them finding yet another stalking
horse. (Not, as I have said before, that I think what Putin did there is at
least somewhat problematic and should have been addressed in a different
way.)
Regardless, it's the neocons. Maybe not "purely" and simply, but at least
Ivory-soap level purely and simply. (I.e., 99 and 44/100% pure.)
@Sam J.
That's too simplistic. How do you explain the power of Saudi Arabia, which
is responsible for the oil price drops. Or explain why Israeli Foreign
Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with Putin. Ethnic animosity
on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in America, isn't the largest
explanation, though it certainly is part of the story.
@unit472
Don't we live in interesting times? We do. How long.? God knows?
West hurts the economic interests of Germany. West spies on Merkel. West
has prevented Germany from doing business with Iran and now Russia It has
cost Germany billions . Germany continues to carry the political, defense, and
economic water for Israel.
Merkel like the abused laborer comes home drunk and beats the wife for she
doesn't have the guts to stand up to the abusers outside . A pathetic moron
who should have never been put on the shelf for any life.
You left out the most important factor in this. The 800 lb gorilla or 2 ton
elephant in the room. Jewish power. This has been a Jewish War on Russia
from day one. Look at the cast of characters in terms of both pundits and
political players.
Some say Conservatives are rattling their sabers at
Putin because they hark back to the Cold War days when things were simpler.
Not so. They are bitching about Putin for the same reason they bitch about
Palestinians. To win Jewish support and money. Conservatives know that Jews
are the most powerful people in America with a lock on many top
institutions. They know that the great majority of Jews are Democrats and
Liberals. They know that many Jews don't see eye-to-eye on many issues that
are important to Conservatives.
So, Conservatives try to over-compensate on foreign policy to win over
Jews. If Democrats are 99% pro-Israel, GOP tries to be 200% pro-Israel. If
Dems have just a smidgen of sympathy for Palestinians, Republicans pretend
that Palestinians are the new Nazis who must be ground to dust. If Democrats
are anti-Russian, Republicans try to outdo the Democrats by making Putin out
to be new Stalin-Hitler-Ming-the-Merciless.
It's all about groveling. We live in a country where a freak like Sheldon
Adelson can casually say we should drop a nuke on Iran but still gets to
play an important role in politics. Notice not a single Republican called
out on his craziness. They are all running dog slaves of Jews, and so their
foreign policy agenda is molded to pander to Jews.
Jews hate Russia because Putin has stood for majority culture, heritage,
religion, patriotism, and national identity. He's been good to Jews, but
he's stressed the importance of Russian identity and culture above all in
Russia. He's not anti-minority, but he thinks Russians should be proudly
pro-Russian. If we use the logic of Putin-ism, every European nation should
stress its own national identity, culture, and heritage instead of
'diversity', 'multi-culturalism', 'white guilt', and worship of the
Holocaust as the new religion. This is why Jews hate Putin. Not because
Putin has been anti-Jewish -- if anything, he's been overly generous to Jews -- but because he's been pro-Russian. In the US, Jews love it when white
folks praise Jews and Jewish culture/history/religion/identity(along with
homosexuals) to high heaven, but they get very upset when there is even the
slightest peep about white identity, white interests, white unity, and white
power. And this is why Obama is with Jews on Russia. Obama has no personal
animus against Putin. But as a black man as president in a white majority
nation -- and as his main allies are Jews and homos, both minority elites -- ,
he also finds it alarming that Putin stands for majority identity, pride,
unity, and power. He's afraid that the Putin bug will spread throughout
Europe and then may infect white folks in the US as well.
That is why Jews have been working overtime to destroy Russia. It is why
Jews have been promoting the likes of the Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen.
Friedman is above all a Jewish supremacist. Paul Krugman is above all a
Jewish supremacist. They are not just some abstract 'liberals'. They are
tribaliberals whose main identity is Jewish. Paul Krugman and Friedman feels
more camaraderie with Jewish oligarchs in Russia than with working class
Democrats or black underclass in America.
Notice that Jews bitch about the oligarchic structure of Russia but
overlook the fact that Russian Jews with the aid of American Jewish
'advisers' created the new order during the Yeltsin yrs. Putin inherited
this order; he didn't create it. Btw, given that US is run by the likes of
Soros and Adelson, how is it not a form of oligarchy as well?
And Jews don't care about the suffering of the Russian middle class in
Russia. If anything, they've feared the rise of a Russian middle class under
Putin since middle class Russians would associate their improvement with
Putinism. By destroying the middle class, Jews want to make Russian middle
class hate Putinism and everything it stands for: nationalism, majority
identity, Christianity, family values, etc.
Jews were behind foreign policy during the Clinton years and what did
they do to Iraq? Sanctions killed 100,000s of women and children. Madeleine
Albright is a criminal like Kaganovich, the Jewish henchman of Stalin who
killed millions in Ukraine during the Great Famine.
Jews didn't care about dead Ukrainians. They didn't care about dead
Iraqis. They don't give a damn about dead Palestinians. Under Obama, Jews
undermined stability in Libya and Syria, creating conditions that led to
deaths of over 200,000.
So why would Jews care about Russians?
Through most Jews are secular, their view of humanity is supremacist and
out of the Old Book. Gentiles are seen as cannon fodder or expendable cattle
in the service of Jewish supremacist power.
America is now an evil nation whose culture amounts to something like
this:
It's a nation where Wall Street sharks and Las Vegas crooks can get away
with just about anything.
This is a Jewish War on Russia. To be sure, Russians are also to blame
for being lazy, confused, drunk, and slovenly. If Russians shape up like old
Prussians, they can build a great nation. But too many are like 'white
trash'.
Though Russia is facing very hard times, they can turn this into an
advantage. Learn the hard lesson that it cannot depend on energy export
alone. Build its own industries and form closer ties with the non-West. EU,
like the US, is totally under the domination of Jewish power.
If Russians are a great people, they will use the current hardship as a
key lesson and build up their nation as more of an independent power.
Problem is Putin is surrounded by many fifth columnists.
The current film THE INTERVIEW is about American assassinating Kim Jong
Un, but the guy whom Jews really want to assassinate is Putin. The likes of
Nuland who subverted Ukraine will go to any length to destroy Russia so that
Jews will take it over like Jews have taken over US and forced 'gay
marriage' on it. Consider the recent Rolling Stone rape hoax article by
Sabrina Rubin Erderly. She is the Victoria Nuland of American journalism.
Just as Nuland hates Russia, American Jews hate white gentiles. Yet,
American Conservatives are a bunch of craven toadies like Ted Cruz who line
up to kiss the asses of scum like William Kristol.
We need to speak the truth. This is not a liberal vs conservative thing.
It is about Jewish supremacism. As Democratic Party is essentially a Jewish
party, its main goal is to further Jewish power. As GOP is eager to win over
more favors and money from Jews, it goes out of way to bark rabidly at
perceived enemies of Jews. GOP is a toady of Jewish power. If Jews hate
Russia, let's bark at Russia, so thinks the GOP. If Jews hate Palestinians,
let's dump on Palestinians and laugh at thousands of Palestinian women and
children killed by Israeli bombs.
@Maj. Kong
"How do you explain Saudi " oil policy?
Saudi never liked Soviet or Russia. Afghanistan, Chechenya and recent threat
to Sochi Olympic are the example. Does Saudi do it with any inherent power
or does it engage in anti Soviet activities for that is what US wants ?
Saudi couldn't stop 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq. It couldn't stop anti
Saudi rhetorics after 911 . It couldn't put pressure on US to accept Saudi
initiated proposals for the Israel -Palestine peaceniks 2002 ,proposed on
the basis of American position It could not make US accept the proposals
that were meant to bring Hamas and PA together in 2004-2007 .
Saudi has more power than Bahrain, or Morocco, or Pakistan, but not more than
that wielded by Israel or India . Saudi is dependent on US for survival.
Someone always guarding against potential overthrow by public cant be
dictating to the world's only military superpower and it doesn't .
WE ARE ALL RUSSIANS
ALL WHITE PEOPLE MUST ADORE & LOVE MOTHER RUSSIA.
PUTIN IS IN THE WAY OF THE JEWISH NEW WORLD ORDER.
Thanks for the great
article. This hatred towards Russia is because Putin is in the way of the
Jewish controlled US and NATO plan called "new world order" in which the
Judaists will fulfill their prophesy to rule all mankind using their proxies
USA and NATO. Putin wants to stand up and does not want Russia to become a
puppet of USA and NATO, so they hate him and are telling lies against him.
So why are most whites Russian and must adore mother Russia?
Because whites are "Caucasians" and their origins have been traced to the
Caucasus mountains!which are in Greater Russia! These whites (who called
themselves "Aryans" but are now called "Indo-europeans" due to Nazi use of
the previous word) went west and settled in a place they named Aryaland (now
called Ireland). They went south and settled in a place they named Aryaan
(Iran) where they mixed somewhat with darker races. They spoke a language
now called PIE (Proto-Indo-European) from which
Greek/Latin/Russian/Sanskrit/Persian and thence English are derived.
Their gene R1a1 is found in about 50% of the white people to this day.
See the book by Mallory: In search of the Indo-Europeans.
@unit472
Our own leaders are just as much liars and jerks as Putin. We assured the
Russians that NATO would not be expanded and then double-crossed them. We
have intervened all over the world including it the Ukraine and then
complain about Putin's intervention in an area that is predominantly
Russian.
Our foreign policy seems to be based on Jewish tribalism rather
than an intelligent evaluation of the interests of ordinary Americans.
It is Angela Merkel who is leading the EU's effort to impose sanctions on
this man not the neocons.
The Americans who post here don't believe
non-Americans have agency so they will not believe it. But, yes, there has
been a sea change in German attitudes towards Russia. This time last year no
one in Germany (and hardly anyone else in Europe) favoured Ukrainian
membership of either the EU or NATO. Even after Putin took Crimea the
Germans made it clear Ukraine had no future in either organisation. That is
when typical Russian stupidity came into play. Undisguised Russian lies
(some of it infantile trolling) about their role in the Ukrainian war and
MH17 followed by bullying the Baltics, insane anti-Finnish propaganda,
irresponsible talk about nuclear weapons, and aggressive probing of
Scandinavian air defenses have all but destroyed Russia's image in Europe.
Now even Germany's previously pro-Russian business community have, in
general, turned against Russia and now support sanctions. Putin has lost
Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and most of Eastern Europe but at
least he's gained the undying love of Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts!
A good article with information on Putin in Leningrad during the attempted
KGB coup that I hadn't heard before.The readers' comments so far haven't
been up to the same level though. Too much much about Jews for one thing.
In my opinion, Putin is being targeted above all because, under his
leadership, Russia is failing to submit to the "Euro-Atlantic consensus" led
by Washington. President de Gaulle got himself into the same sort of trouble
decades ago and they said many of the same things about him then that they
say about Putin now.
De Gaulle was pushed into retirement by the original '68ers and the
Euro-Atlantic consensus looked on and smiled. That turned out to be the
start of a beautiful friendship between the libertine New Left and the
Bilderberg types. That's roughly the same coalition who can't stand Putin
and say, with some evidence, they represent our West.
Putin is doing what he's supposed to do as president of his country; that's
what he's there for. He's helped to rebuild the state up from the low point
it hit just slightly more than twenty years ago, building up the economy and
improving the standard of living, strengthening the state so that it can
credibly deter would-be aggressors. It wasn't that long ago that they
literally collapsed: incomes, pensions, jobs were wiped out and many people
were pauperized; criminality and mafia-type gangs emerged, prostitution,
suicide, drug use and alcoholism soared. Life expectancies dropped to
shocking levels, in the 50′s for men, and families almost stopped having
children. Public property, paid for by the citizenry, was privatized and
looted for a pittance by the infamous oligarchs. From that they've bounced
back to being a major world power. It's not Putin's role to kowtow to any
foreign powers if it goes against the interests of his own country.
Much hot air has been floated about him: he's stolen billions, he's 'just
like' Hitler or perhaps Stalin, he's a madman, and so on. Any American
dissenting from this line is attacked by trolls claiming that they're on the
payroll of Putin as if he were personally sending out envelopes full of
rubles worldwide. The shrillness of the rhetoric has reached absurd levels.
The gay rights angle is some really weak tea; they're grabbing at anything
now, possibly out of frustration. Putin is nothing if not completely
rational; all that he's done has been rational and predictable. They're not
going to knuckle under to threats and bluster, that much is clear. Times
have changed; it's not 1992 anymore.
PUTIN IS ALSO IN THE WAY OF ISRAEL'S TOTAL CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST.
I
want to add another important reason the Judaists hate Russia!Israel.
The Judaists own and operate all 3 branches of our govt. and the media.
The Judaists see Iran and Syria as a threat to Israel that must be
eliminated, and Russia supports both of them, so they are going after Russia
and Putin directly. By eliminating Putin and Russia, they believe they can
then eliminate Syria and Iran, and make the middle east totally safe for
Israel, where Israel can kill and terrorize the Middle East and maybe the
whole world with impunity.
Russia is being targeted by Zio-Washington because of Putin's alliance with
Syria and Iran. America's seething hostility towards Russia has 'Made In
Israel' all over it. This is just another Israeli hit. Expect more.
But it truly baffles me that the likes of Merkel and Obama think its
just fine to screw with Putin. He isn't threatening us and he isn't messing
around with American interests yet we persist in demonizing him and trying
to push him into a corner.
And given our track record, it won't turn out good for us or the EU if we
go too far. This isn't some mud culture in the ME we're screwing with and
Putin isn't some serial bulls
**
t artist like our political
class. It could easily go bad for us, real fast.
@North Carolina Resident
Wikipedia is good on most noncontroversial topics. For a more realistic
assessment of foreign affairs and economics, I recommend any respectable
mainstream outlet, and simply reverse their conclusions. That's how we had
to make do before Al Gore invented the internet.
One point I think that's being missed is that the American media and
American elite are vehemently pro-Obama. They protect Obama from anything
that looks like hostility and they're always careful to keep their wagons
circled around him. But Putin thinks Obama is an ineffectual baboon, and
what's worse, makes him look like one in public. That alone makes Putin the
enemy to a lot of Americans (including Obama). I think it's not properly
understood how deeply psychologically crazy the Obama cult is. It's every
bit as nutty as the cult around Kim Jong-un, except that the latter has a
lot more coercive state power.
@unit472
Unit 472- Clearly you haven't read Putin's speeches or taken in the facts of
his actions. Next to our own leaders, what Putin is saying and has been
doing has been a breath of fresh. These always include fact-based- albeit
blunt- narratives grounded in reality, and clear headed analyses of what
Russia has been proposing and doing. Would that we had the same from our own
leaders in the Administration or Congress.
Read what he is saying, and
watch what he is doing, not what the mainstream media intent on demonizing
him is saying he is saying and doing.
And, sorry, I'm not a paid Putin operative- I'm a loyal American
concerned about the future of my country, family and the rest of the world
(including Russia).
@fnn
Israel has the brothel capital . The most trafficked nation is Israel. The
victims are from East European and African places . India has been both a
victim and a perpetrator. But it is the glorious nation Israel that stands
out in whole world holding the shining beacon to the girls to come and be
used .
"Despite having vast power, the neocons seem to be in perpetual anxiety.
They're like fleas on a beautiful dog! constantly worried about being
scratched off."
http://www.lewrockwell.com
Can Putin secure the dog from these infestations by these tribal monolithic
war mongers fleas?
Do you believe that the imprisonment of the apolitical Oleg
Navalny, to get at his brother, anti-corruption campaigner Alexei, is an
example of Russia's new conservative Christian values? It looks a lot more
like an old Soviet tactic. Navalny is not exactly a pro-American liberal.
From his
Wikipedia page
:
The BBC noted in a profile of Navalny that his endorsement of a
political campaign called "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" and his willingness to
speak at ultra-nationalist events "have caused concern among liberals."
Navalny is agitating on behalf of aggressive anti-immigration policies
As we all now know Putin is very liberal on immigration – flooding
western cities with Asians.
Early in 2012 Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV that "Russian foreign
policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus
In fact, we're one nation. We should enhance integration."
The pro-Kremlin blogs and Putin's libertarian advocates who swoon over
all Putin's other actions have been silent so far on the Navalny case.
@Maj. Kong
Why would I have to explain the power of Saudi Arabia? They have a lot of
oil. A side note. Have you ever considered the idea that the house of Saud
is Jewish? Yeah I know it sounds crazy but they and Israel do seem to be
together when large issues are at stake. Has there ever been a time where
the Saudi's funded anyone or anything that threatened the root security of
Israel? I'm not saying they are but it has crossed my mind. Now you're
saying "what madness" but stranger things have happened. Like the Jewish
homosexual pedophile that ran the Nazi party in the US. A story so odd I
couldn't have made it up and didn't. Jews are an extremely weird people and
to think in a linear Western European way about them is folly.
" explain
why Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with
Putin "
Uuhh, he's a good actor. Even better he's a psychopath. The best actors
on the planet.
" Ethnic animosity on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in
America, isn't the largest explanation "
Doesn't matter WHERE they're from. Their Jews. Anyone who thwarts their
collection of power is the enemy.
PeaceLover says,"Victoria Nulland and Geoff Pyatt are both jews."
I know. I don't get it. So? They hate Putin.
The Jews are a very strange people. Very strange. I think part of
regaining control of our country is to find out why they are what they are.
This is very much a Henry David Thoreau,"There are a thousand hacking at the
branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.". People have commented
on this constantly on how we are run by the Jews and we never seem to make
headway. They run our country. They put up a Menorah on the White house lawn
while we're not allowed a cross. This is the most absurd thing I can
possibly imagine and shows exactly who's in charge.
I believe the Jews are what THEY say they are. Different. First. I
believe the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the
majority but a substantial number. If you take into account this fact, the
behavior of the Jews will never surprise you.
Psychopaths are a troublesome bunch. This would account for the Talmud.
It's a training manual for psychopaths. You can do what you want to others
but watch out for us the psychopaths/Jews. Lots of little rules as
psychopaths have no inborn mental map to follow. The basic gist of the whole
Talmud is that everyone will be their servants and they will own all the
possessions. If that's not a psychopathic idea I don't know what is.
Maybe it's even more to it than that. I'm not sure about what I'm writing
next but I'm beginning to strongly suspect it to be true. From,
He says the Jews have a high percentage of Neanderthal. That this makes
them aggressive. Read his first page. It makes sense to me because the Jews
in charge in many cases look like Neanderthals. I got this idea from many
places
http://michaelbradley.info/
being just one. He said it first of course.
There's others. Look at this page on Zana who was a Neanderthal/ Homo
Erectus/ ???? that had children by normal humans, then look at her children.
Familiar looking?
@Matra
Orthodox Christian churches traditionally are subordinate to the state.
While the Roman Church traditionally claimed to be equal in authority to the
state or sovereign. Even still, Western Christianity and conservative
Christian values are not incompatible with authoritarian government and
often flourished under authoritarianism.
Navalny may not be a pro-American liberal, but presumably he's supported
by the US to further pro-American liberal ends. Just as the Afghan
mujahideen, who weren't pro-American liberals, were supported in the 1980s
by the US to further pro-American liberal foreign policy aims.
American foreign policy elites want the Russian Federation broken up and
replaced with nominally independent states, with Russia proper confined to
west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus and reduced to a minor state
without a military-complex and command of vast resources capable of
rendering it an independent power and security challenge. Russia and the
other newly independent states would then be integrated under a US-NATO led
Eurasian security architecture. Presumably Navalny is supported by the US in
part simply because he's a dissident against the Russian state, and because
his more nationalist, "little Russia" politics is regarded as amenable with
these broader US foreign policy objectives for Russia and the Eurasia
region, although presumably Navalny himself doesn't want this diminished and
reduced role and capacity for Russia but wants it just with a much more
nationalist politics.
What happens when Putin comes forward to repeal an Orwellian law which
prevents free speech about it and then admits what thinking Russians already
know about it, that being Soviet Russia's efforts in manufacturing &
distributing so much of the propaganda about the impossible but profitable
'holocaust' scam?
Tread lightly Zionists / Jewish supremacists, Putin has
lightning in his hands.
suggested:
'Made in Russia 'The Holocaust' Carlos Whitlock Porter'
The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter
MADE IN RUSSIA – THE HOLOCO$T
Not to mention Russia's efforts to cast aside the dollar as the main
currency of exchange, witness their deals with China and movements in other
parts of Asia and the Middle East.
Russia has reached the point of having nothing left to lose thus making
the Zionist / US influence less & less a factor. If the US had significant
economic investments in Russia we would have significant influence, what
influence we did have has been stupidly sanctioned away. Other than bullying
Europe to impose sanctions, which has hurt Europe tremendously, real US
options are very limited.
I would not be the least bit surprised to see Russia directly intervene
in Ukraine resulting in re-integration of the eastern Ukraine provinces back
into Russia. Russia now has little to lose, so why not?
I found another page that has Sykes saying," "Bryan noticed some unusual
features on Khwit's skull," Mark Evans narrates, "very wide eye sockets and
an elevated brow ridge that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern,
human origins. And he was starting to toy with a thought-provoking
alternative notion."
Sykes then shares it: "Maybe she isn't an African of
recent origin at all but one from a migration out of Africa many thousands,
perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, and she comes from a relict
population "
I really have no idea what most of the readers' comments here are even
talking about. As I scroll through them, they seem like excerpts from the
dream diary of a mad anthropologist. What does all this have to do with
President Vladimir Putin of Russia?
@Matra
So assuming that you read the article (there was about an hour's time lapse
between my comment and your follow up) I would be interested in what would
be your counter arguments to the facts printed in the article.
I inadvertently triggered the August Coup in 1991. The coup was the result
of a vendetta between myself and KGB boss Vladimir Kryuchkov. An account of
what really happened was published by Nezavisimaya Gazeta ten years after
the coup.
The Romanians named a car after me: the Dacia Logan.
Putin has been anathematized because of his refusal to submit to Jacob
Rothschild in 2003. The world is being held to ransom by the Rothschild
mafia. It's as simple as that.
@unit472
Unit472, man you do a bad job by citing totally wrong facts. Merkel was from
the time she was still an opposition leader already totally pro-USA. She
visited at that time Bush to give him her support for the Irak war. She has
never been close to Russia or Putin: all propaganda.
The Ukraine putsch
was a orchestrated CIA plot with the Ukrainian nazis. See the video of
Nuland's 5 billion and the 'maidan-bullits'. Furthermore, see the video of
Komoloyskyi the Ukrainian and pro-USA oligarch with his own pro Nazi militia
wherein he stated the MH17 as a trifle, as a mistake shooting down the wrong
plane (the wrong plane: should have been the plane of Putin) and laughing
about it.
Your comment on the weapons is incorrect. Weapons are smuggled everywhere
and a lot were taken from the Ukr. military as Prokoschenko himself admitted
several times.
So unit472: get you act together and defend you Satan better.
@TomB
You are absolutely right in : 'A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone
wrong only at the very end seeing Putin's antipathy towards homosexuality as
explaining anything'.
Furthermore I would say: This is s distraction from
the exceptionalism and hegemony goal of the american character and culture.
The most personified by the neocons, but not only by them. A lot of the
mainstream follow this goal too, because it can bring them success and
profit. And this is the goal and character of an american in general: every
man can become a billionaire (whatever it takes: where under the genocide of
the native americans). It is the survival, which implies hegemony and
exceptionalism, of the fittest!!.
The Rev Denis Fahey was an Irish priest who was in Russia at the time and
was shocked to see the number of Jews in administrative positions under
Lenin. He wrote a book about it in 1937 that has been mostly suppressed
until lately. It is called "The Rulers of Russia". He was dismissed as an
anti-semite for merely pointing out the facts. Sounds familiar ?
Then under Yeltsin the so-called Jewish oligarchs looted Russian
privatization with Western Jewish money and also in other Soviet countries.
Now, with Putin at the helm, the Jews are having a difficult time
influencing Russia so the US Neocons (mostly right-wing Jews) are angry with
him. The US Jewish-controlled government, media and think-tanks are
therefore going after Putin and discrediting him in many ways. The same old
story – and we can suspect that it will end badly as in the past.
@Tony Hammond
Tony: I appreciate your insights, even if some of them seem to veer into the
category of gossip. You lived in Russia from 1986-2009, if I'm doing the
math right. That being the case you were there before the official fall of
Communism and during the Yeltsin years. Given that, I am kind of surprised
you did not mention anything about Mr Yeltsin the man who "gave away the
store" to a number of Godzilla-sized Oligarchs, a number of whom fled to
Israel when Mr Putin decided to put an end to the selling off of Russia's
patrimony to International Finance.
Your charge of corruption entails his
ex-wife's "reported to own 25%, etc." I'm not quite sure how that involves
corruption, but for the sake of argument, let us say that it does. The next
logical step would be for you to answer the question: "reported" by who? The
Russian press? Your next door neighbor? Masha Gessen? I would need some more
details here before pronouncing the term "corruption". The same goes for the
expensive watch he owns. Details? (Last year the Obamas cost the taxpayers
several Billion dollars flying them around on vacations. An envious Putin
might retort "I'm the President of Russia and all I get is this nice
expensive watch!")
OK, humor aside, let's get down to basics. I am a Catholic, too. I don't
canonize Mr Putin. But my "sensus Catholicus" tells me that there is
something potentially good happening in that once sad land and that Mr Putin
may have something to do with it. I am always intrigued by the videos of the
recent meeting between Putin and Pope Francis. When staring at a gorgeous
icon, a gift from Putin to the Pope, Francis stands there looking confused
while Putin very naturally and un-ostentatiously bends over to kiss the icon
and makes the sign of the cross. It took the Pope a few moments to do
likewise. A small matter? Perhaps.
It will take a long time for Russia to be freed from a century of atheism
but anyone who cannot see the pendulum turning back from that despair is
simply not paying attention. We Catholics, especially those of us who value
our 2,000 years of tradition, have often been forgetful of the fact that
today's Russia is not the Communist Russia of yore. I see a troubling
attitude in far too many Catholic blogs that refuses to let go of the old
anti-Communist crusade. While there is a great deal of healing still needed
in Russia and even as, alas, far too many Russians and Orthodox despise
Catholicism, I will continue to pray for them and hope that the machinations
of our rather foul government in trying to destroy Russia will be thwarted.
@unit472
Angela Merkel is, at the end of the day, a loyal servant of the USA.
Remember she supported the Iraq invasion at a time when Gerhard Schroder
opposed it. Schroder had reduced neocons in America to a blind fury because
he was friendly with Russia and opposed the Iraq war. The old neocon Tom
Lantos called Schroder a "prostitute" because of his Russia connections.
Neocon pawprints are all over this mess in Ukraine. Ms Nuland is married
to one of the top PNAC neocons, Robert Kagan.
@Tony Hammond
Tony, you are so right about Putin. He's nothing more than a white washed
KGB thug. The ROC is a state controlled thing that is used as an active
agency of espionage against the West. Toby Westerman and Cliff Kincaid have
given plenty of proof Russia merely exchanged the Soviet sheepskin for a new
one to cover up the wolf beneath it. What boggles my mind is that a Southern
website would buy this act. During the Civil War, the Czar sent warships to
Union ports to back up Lincoln's war efforts. If the Russians are "friendly"
toward Southern political movements now, it's probably because they see a
chance to increase their influence among gullible Americans, just like they
did in the Cold War period.
Excellent article. Apart from political or military reasons which US and its
puppets hate Russia under Putin's leadership, I can see a greater picture.
We are in a Great Battle now: Devil versus God.
Make no mistake, we are witnessing a spiritual war which is most evident in
our time than ever before. Everyone has to make a choice now. You can't
serve both God and Devil. Putin is on God's side and I admire him for that.
God bless him and every faithful Christian.
@Tony Hammond
"Sockpuppetry" is when a single individual posts under a variety of
different names and email addresses in order to pretend his views are much
more widespread than they actually are.
It really isn't proper behavior
for commenters on a website.
In France the anti-Putin campaign of the political establishment seems to
have brought together a loose, pro-Putin faction that resembles the old Free
French coalition. Putin is popular with Catholic patriotic types and the old
school, blue collar types from communist families who resent the New Left
agenda.
The Germans seem to be going rogue too:
"The information war for Ukraine" – Satirical German program "Die
Anstalt" (Eng Subs)
Die Anstalt – Ukraine Maidan with English subtitles
A master-stroke, that one. An amateur troll unit472 aka Hammond,
because a professional would have used proxies for posting. Probably just a
sexually frustrated loser who could not get along with magnificent Russian
babes. His best is that whoever disagrees with him is a Kremlin's paid
agent.
Thank you for this first class paleo-conservative article, which I almost
missed due to summer holidays Downunder. I have been making the same point –
that Putin and Western paleo-conservatives have much in common. If
paleo-conservatives had any power in the US, there would be no conflict and
no war on Russia and/or China – the World could be united around betterment
for the majority (private property and private enterprise). As is, totally
opposite is true: communism for the manipulators is the ruling system.
I will definitely look for more articles by Mr. Cathey. His writing is
like a reminder of what being an intellectual used to mean.
@unit472
I would say that if unit472 is not a mindless swallower of Leftist/Neocon
bilge or a homosexual, then he is Jewish. All 3 are more than possible.
Merkel has become anti-Putin for the reasons Cathey states: she is
pro-sodomite, as well as Liberal in almost every way that matters.
@Jay
You inherited from Christians a vibrant and successful society that you and
your whining comrades could never have built. You run it into the ground,
because you have no morals. I would not be surprised if you were a
homosexual. Atheism is a nice cop-out for them. The Russians know what to do
with the likes of destroyers such as yourself.
An excellent, sweeping view of the disinformation about Putin that has
enlightened my understanding of the situation and changed my opinion. Cathey
absolutely demolishes.
Why aren't these ideas expressed in the Sunday talk
shows? Why has the news profession degenerated into propaganda and jingoism?
Doesn't anybody in the media bother to examine facts any more?
I can only conclude that the Empire wants an enemy, and the media happily
obliges.
@Tony Hammond
Quote: "He has become arrogant and has clearly developed the usual Russian
mystical nationalistic mania that has blighted Russia for centuries. he has
become dangerous."
That's my very impression too, and that it's got worse
since the Putin's presidency got resumed in 2012. I was born in Russia but
left soon after Putin had been elected the first term. Last year I was
catching up on Russian and Ukrainian news and politics since I can read
Russian and Ukrainian. Putin has done a good job with the country but his
popularity came at an expense of spreading nationalistic mania and hate,
cracking down on independent media and building a new Iron Curtain (work in
progress, more laws being adopted). People still have very Soviet mentality
over there, which is about claiming superiority over everybody else in the
world and hatred to anything Western. This rhetorics softened down with the
fall of the Soviet system but got a second life during the Putin's
presidency. Including military threats (just watch that part where a man
from a Russian government TV channel talks about turning Americans into
radioactive dust – feels very uncomfortable to me). It's incredible how this
enormous pride can get along with Christianity! Everything bad that happens
to Russia is caused by the Great Evil of the West. Some nationalists even
see Putin himself as too Western and a Western agent. It's a nationalistic
genie out of the bottle where there is no real difference between pro-Putin
and anti-Putin attitudes.
I also got very confused at first with the clever propaganda machine.
People over there don't get access to word's news other then being retold by
government media, unless they are curious and know foreign languages. It's
like "Obama said that oil priced had been expected to drop" retold as "Obama
caused the oil prices to drop". But I myself can compare the sources and see
what's been "translated". What came as a surprise was a great number of
"analytic" and "personal" articles and comments on the internet which were
just cleverly crafted propaganda. Some is silly stuff, like: the West is
poor, filthy, crazy, European children are taught to have sex with gay
adults, the communist regime has been planted into Russia by America, the
USSR has been destroyed by America in 1991 (who cares about the
contradiction). Some are much more clever, with solid looking facts and
links, when you ask "what? this is interesting, I didn't know that". And
then you do fact checking and see you've been fooled and this person indeed
is not some "independent blogger". And depicting the civil war in Ukraine as
a "patriotic Russian war against fascism" is yet another story.
@Anonymous
So are all the main neocons. We have been neoconned. As Russell Kirk
remarked, when it comes to Israel and the US, it is hard to tell which is
the dog and which is the tail. The "international Jew" is the one great
taboo subject in the US and now in Europe, and for good reason.
@Chiron
Spare us of this "poor russians" drivel. Russia has persecuted religious
leaders, tortured cristian priests and rabbis, when not killing them
straight away for "anti-revolutionary activities", killing millions upon
millions of their own people in times of peace. Watch the documentary "The
Soviet Story" here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZjyyAE-78
, Russia is and has been the
moral anus of the world.
Before one becomes to enamored of "conservative" Russia, bear in mind this
country still has one of the world's highest abortion rates (in 2008, 44.7%
of pregnancies were aborted, a rate double that of the US and liberal
countries such as France or the UK). It has a very high murder rate by
non-African standards – 9.2 per 100,000 people, nearly double that of the
USA's 4.7. While Russians profess to be Orthodox, church attendance in
Russia is comparable to that of Sweden and Germany – 30% to 40% of Russians
never attend church. In Russia's traditional enemy, Catholic Poland, this
figure is less than 10%. In Ukraine, it is 10% to 20%. Russia's divorce
rate, 51%, is one of the world's highest (though in this state the US does
worse – 53%). In Ukraine it is 42%, in Poland 27%. Etc. etc. By virtually
every measure, Russia is not conservative at all. But it does dislike gays,
and its ex-KGB leader says nice things about traditional values in his
speeches. Does that compensate for everything else?
Odd that seemingly
traditionalist Catholics are seeing in Russia some kind of savior. Even
odder, some of them seem to be taking the Russian side as Russia has
conflicts with truly conservative and traditional places such as its western
neighbors.
Who is more staunchly fighting for the values of most conservative
Catholics? Putin, or the Pope?
If your Catholic religion is more than a tribal identification, then
you have to be for Putin.
When Russians (including Putin, who dumped is wife and mother of his
children for some young reporter he impregnated) start walking the walk
instead of merely talking the talk, you might have a point. It's good that
he doesn't publically denigrate traditional values and says nice things
about Christianity, but that is no substitute for the real thing. And it's
good that he has stood up for Christians in the Middle East. But Europe
isn't Syria.
In Europe, the most devout, conservative, churchgoing people are in
Poland and in western Ukraine. Within Ukraine, Putin was supporting the part
of the country with the highest abortion rates, lowest church-going rates,
highest murder rates, highest HIV rates, etc. etc. and trying to get this
part of the country to dominate the conservative, churchgoing western part.
Sorry, that's not fighting for conservative values.
The reality is that Putin doesn't fight for conservative values but for
the Russian State. Sometimes, this coincides with conservative values (i.e.,
helping Syria, promoting the Church in Russia). Often, it does not. And
despite an approach that sometimes coincides with conservatism, Russian
society itself, with its massive amount of abortions, high murder rate, low
rate of church attendance, high divorce rate, etc. is not very conservative
across many important measures and certainly much less conservative than its
western neighbors.
@unit472
Merkel never said Putin is unable to "grasp reality", she said he had a
different "Weltanschauung" (which is somewhat akin to a mix of ideology and
worldview). And compared to the satanic rulers of the West – he does have.
Interesting about Merkel she is probably being blackmailed by US or Israel
based on data interception – why else spy on her? (NSA shares all with
Mossad, confirmed courtesy of Snowden documents.)
Also interesting about Merkel, she was an avid Communist in her youth.
Something not brought up nearly as often as Putin's memberships, no doubt,
as she knows whose orders to obey (i.e., those who control the Western
media).
And on you go to your profoundly insightful insights, garnered, no doubt,
from spending many hours reading propaganda from Western media outlets who
hate Putin for many of the reasons stated in this article (but most
importantly, because he does not follow their orders).
@AP
Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative not to
look at where his group
is
, but where it is
heading
. Putin
cannot undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with
the vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very
loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported
(by the same group) "liberal" fifth column in Russia.
I don't know about
your statistics, I know Russia was ruled by satanic priests for a long time
and Putin is far from undoing their damage. But in the "West" the direction
is unequivocally in the direction of more State-sponsored satanism and in
Russia the trend has reversed. One is judged by his actions, not by the
history he inherits.
Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative
not to look at where his group is, but where it is heading. Putin cannot
undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with the
vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very
loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported
(by the same group) "liberal" fifth column in Russia.
This is an old argument, and it has some merit. The problem is that
whatever direction Russia is heading, is still very far from where it ought
to be. Yes, Russia's abortion rate has declined. It's still
the highest
in the world.
:
It's great that many Russian profess to be Orthodox Christians now. But
church attendance is still on the same level as liberal Germany and Germany.
We can list other sins, as I have done (murder rate, HIV rate, which
tells us about moral problems such as prostitution, etc.).
Opposing Russia, there are Poland and western Ukraine. Poland has the
lowest abortion rate in the world, one of the lowest divorce rates, one of
the lowest child-out-of-wedlock rates, etc. Western Ukraine is closer to
Poland than to Russia.
So there is a real conflict between a fundamentally, genuinely
conservative places and Russia, a very liberal, immoral place.
Yes, Russia was traumatized by communism. I'm sure a lot of criminals
were abused as children too – that doesn't justify their crimes. That
doesn't mean we take their side, rather than the victim's side. If I see a
criminal in a fight with a decent person, I'm not going to take the
criminal's side because he had a bad childhood, or because he's a little bit
not as bad as he was a few years ago. But, it seems, as long as the criminal
says some nice words, you would take his side.
@AP
And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin is
also bad. OK, you don't like them, we get it. You have nothing to add to the
discussion except to keep chiming in to trash them which moves the
discussion nowhere.
You don't like Russians yet you use a Russian-sounding name for a handle.
Why? Are you just another troll, "doctor"?
And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin
is also bad. OK, you don't like them, we get it.
Nope, my point is that Russians are by most measures not conservative at
all and certainly less conservative than their western neighbors and rivals,
and thus that a conservative who supports Russia in its European conflicts
is either ignorant or hypocritical.
Pointing out facts is not done to "trash" Russians but to provide
evidence for my statements.
You are, btw, acting like someone who complains when someone cites
African-American murder rates in a debate involving race. I hope you are not
a self-proclaimed conservative also?
You, on the other hand, offer nothing but complaints and a personal
attack in your post. Your statement about trolling is ironic.
@Anonymous
That's Nuland. I think it is important to distinguish between Jews and
ardent neocon Zionists. Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, are Jewish in
name only. Zionists violate virtually every moral in the Torah. Zionism is
the disease. The Zionists made deals with Hitler wherein he would only
permit them to leave Germany in the thirties if they went to Palestine. The
Likud, whose American branch is the Neocons, is the lineal descendant of the
Irgun, the Zionist terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel and conducted
terrorism against innumerable Palestinians before the Zionist state came
about. Their policy is total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Israel,
and Israel's expansion to claim all Palestinian lands stolen in the 1967
war. If you want to see the difference between Judaism and Zionism, go to
the website for True Torah Jews. These are Orthodox Jews who eloquently
state how modern Zionism violates every tenet of genuine Judaism, based on
the Torah and the prophetic writings. Please do not confuse Judaism with the
crimes of modern state terrorist Zionism.
@Anonymous
I object strenuously to the term "the international Jew." This smacks of
Hitler buddy Henry Ford, who published the faked Protocol of the Elders of
Zion in his Dearborn Independent. He also manufactured Ford trucks and tanks
in Hitler's Germany, which played a key role in war against the Allies.
There is no "international Jew." Jews are a very diverse ethnicity. The old
saying is, "two Jews, three opinions." Please do not let your rightful
dislike of the militarist, imperialist neocons and the Israeli Zionists
color your opinion of all Jews. That is falling for an oversimplified
stereotype. Also there are bankers of every religious and ethnic background.
The main financing of Hitler by Western bankers was by elite American and
British White Anglo Protestants. See Francis Donnolly's provocative
documentary, "Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick."
@TomB
"I at least haven't and don't see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else
our anti-Putinista's have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights. "
You are correct about Ukraine and Georgia but last year there was at least
one article in the Guardian I believe quoting the LGBT advocates rooting for
the coup so that the EU could impose the homosexual agenda on Ukraine.
@Sam J.
We need to add another rule to Godwin's Rule. Anyone who interjects 9-11
Truth nonsense into a discussion has his internet privileges limited for six
months. Only access permitted: twerking videos.
I'm a cynical man. I suspect that much of the official opposition to Putin
is due precisely to the fact that he has participated in the restoration of
Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Russia. If he was only a closet Marxist the
West and the mass media would get along fine with him.
The American media hates Putin because Crimeans voted to join Russia and
Putin agreed. This is called by American politicians and presstitutes an
"invasion of Ukraine" where somehow our never ending meddling in the Middle
East is rarely called such. The American media hates Putin because after the
current government in Ukraine was installed by an American backed coup
Eastern Ukrainians objected and decided to secede from the country, and
Putin provided them with humanitarian aid. The American media hates Putin
because he is more interested in defeating ISIS than Assad. And worst of
all, Putin is an actual Christian who objects to rabid feminists desecrating
churches which is considered by the American press to be a fundamental human
right.
@unit472
Merkel had no "axe to grind with Putin"?!!
The de-facto leader of the EU
who would at the very least know of the funding of the pro-EU rebels who
illegally overthrew the Ukraine's anti-EU President wouldn't have a problem
when Putin helped to fight back? The leader of the organisation who is doing
everything it can not just to stop the UK from leaving but even more than
that behaving in such a way as to bully any other country that thinks of
leaving would be quite happy that the Ukraine's pro-EU imposed government
was being opposed.
It's not Boyd Cathey who is the idiot or the paid operative.
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions
from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the
election of 2016.
Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans
elected him to office.
What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading
from an indictment?
President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing
the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.
President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from
offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at
all?
Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war
and averting a new war in Korea.
Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring
about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all
its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.
We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into
a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep
of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth
province of Kosovo.
Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance
and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others
see us."
Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so,
and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing
up for his country?
Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough
on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the
present moment."
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was
done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was
the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.
As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode
of social misconduct: "Get over it!"
We have other fish to fry.
In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have
a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the
U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.
Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased
trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing
warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim
belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.
Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's
transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.
Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers
with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing
sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.
Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.
If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that
can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military
option that could bring nuclear war.
Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can,
this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively
and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence
to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures
by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.
Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story
used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was
convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media
leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.
Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for
someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate.
Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will
be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for
Israel and their efforts showed as much.
Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to
Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or
they're just playing into the narrative.
Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent,
that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents.
Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics
of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly
hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently
absurd.
"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear
warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this
or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."
Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to
leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.
But what was done cannot be undone."
There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there
is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible
evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag
cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.
How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So
far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate
media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying:
"One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."
As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats
like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump
has sidelined just before French's Macron.
It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist
and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career.
The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.
Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him
at all?
exactly!
... ... ...
If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?
the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than
the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual
sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.
If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable
with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher
EU.
I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians
did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?
Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort
of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think
he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is
justified based on their beliefs?
The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic
emails – is false.
On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the
false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush
aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump
as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.
However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in
place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not
approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."
Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering
organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked
(read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent
analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group
of like-minded people "
I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016
presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left
and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain
more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.
Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia
rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find
themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with
his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing
on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.
I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's
not good.
@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of
them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged,
let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked
the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given
that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the
world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections
by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.
So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online
unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?
from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus
. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine
the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting
that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused
to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike
that told the FBI that it was the Russians.
Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems
that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company
is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report
that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. .
.
@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree
with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example:
"Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."
USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic
it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the
opponent's premises then quibbling.
"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."
"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."
"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."
An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny
protests in response to blows.
The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat
the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.
Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support
for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government
in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.
Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths
of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century,
but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a
hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia
in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk'
support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their
lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could
not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:
"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."
Pat,
You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as
the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They
are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government
says at face value .always demand proof.
@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making
a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."
@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists
pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."
this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of
Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear
conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still
slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.
As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of
Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of
delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed
Russia.
This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced
responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but
now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's
safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's
WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as
well.
Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and
commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred
that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.
For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink
of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the
assertion "true." But it was never true.
It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper when he issued
a statement
last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the
U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus
of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton began touting.
However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a
17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or
NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.
But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a
formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President
Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election –
and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the
opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office),
not 17.
Lacking Hard Evidence
The report also contained
no hard
evidence
of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best.
However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies"
refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The
argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as
true?"
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in
the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit:
Office of Director of National Intelligence)
It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly
set the record
straight
in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three
"contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."
The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S.
intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence
when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to
hear.
On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed
Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the
assessment.
Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something
like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."
After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the
"17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian
"meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous
judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.
This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17
agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New
York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be
detected.
For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal
correction.
A Belated Correction
Finally, on June 25, the Times'
hand was
forced
when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation,
mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American
intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help
get him elected."
When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to
append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four
intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central
Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The
assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence
community."
The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious
reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.
So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to
conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal"
had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.
The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to
begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a
"certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty
much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply
move on as if nothing had changed.
That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be
followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington
Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference,
stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence
on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the
NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence."
Though the Post did not identify the
country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian
culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on
the work of external organizations.
Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly
hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike,
which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the
anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.
Relying on Outsiders
You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has
pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the
U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.
If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI
seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation?
And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is
"some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one
that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?
But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media
that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.
Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various
formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly
different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the
specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and
out of step.
For instance, James Holmes of Esquire
was
stunned
on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press
corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still
wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the
intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months
after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you
thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the
"17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have
been sadly mistaken.
But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny).
Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently
propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.
Hating Putin
This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he
began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to
well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as
the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.
But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin
reached new
heights
after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal
interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and
helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to
bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.
The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup
in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely
anti-Russian regime.
The U.S. operation was
spearheaded
by
neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt
discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this
thing."
Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government
and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.
When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to
reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian
troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion."
But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across
borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had
occurred.
However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme
anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of
disseminating Russian
"propaganda"
– or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no
tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were
saying.
Trump Meets Putin
So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg,
Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the
Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.
In a July 3
editorial
, The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr.
Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the
United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump,
who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's
investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not
hesitate to be blunt.
"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed
uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate
violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the
United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of
peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some
collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote
in a July 5
column
, "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would
legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in
addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post
editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S.
and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply
treated as undeniable truths.
But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in
history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did
funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of
presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and
dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.
In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into
conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future
revelations.
As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an
extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.
With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of
soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should
hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in
"propaganda-ville."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen
Narrative,
either in
print here
or
as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
).
Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But
people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the
public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership
of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election
hacking has emerged.
I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely.
Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of
the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal
establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal
establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.
Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define
what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic
accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether,
but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?
The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails
and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).
The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic
establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie
Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation
from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts.
They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty
Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for
the purpose of this argument.
The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained
these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report
from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left
behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece
of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access
to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.
That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't
say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of
definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article
of faith like the Holy Trinity.
But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able
to refute the
evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance
systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been
hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled
over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have
the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.
As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking",
yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever
of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact
I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers
to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.
The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what
actually happened.
The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike
– the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike
report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must
have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.
Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking"
meme going. On 24 May the Guardian
reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that
"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and
WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession
of, or examined by, the FBI."
It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating
the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.
There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime",
while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating
its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly
investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.
So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike
claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with
the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set
up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?
Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically
deploys technology that leaves behind fake
fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.
Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that
the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery
in the Ukraine. This has been
utterly discredited.
Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media
are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher
Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell
lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.
Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague
miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do
they have business links with Russian finance?
Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are
woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons
and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good
for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.
Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject
may damage him.
The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up.
But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary.
At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm.
There is nothing there.
Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive
scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started
will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by
people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream
media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy
and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from
his website .
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first
in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion
about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the
U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.
"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be
an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with
Lavrov.
Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's
role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York
said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to
the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."
U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election
for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts
said represents a top-level threat.
Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more
than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that
was reached by Russia and the United States.
While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia
had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.
Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters
that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan
- another party to the deal.
Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial
and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.
"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."
"... But, seriously now, it does not really matter if these actions are just the result of imperial hubris and delusion, a complete lack of diplomatic education, the consequences of simple and straightforward human stupidity or all part of some diabolical plan to set the US on a collision course with the entire planet. ..."
"... What matters is the mind-blowing arrogance of it all, as if the USA were a white knight in shining armor worthy only of praise and adulation and as if the rest of the planet were composed of rowdy schoolchildren who needed to heed the words of their principal and start behaving or else get a good spanking from Uncle Sam. ..."
"... But, alas, it appears that many months of a sustained Neocon campaign to make darn sure that Russia and the US could never seriously collaborate have been very successful. ..."
"... So where does this all leave us, the millions of people who had at least *some* hopes about Trump being an outsider who could try to make some real changes happen and maybe liberate the United States from the Neocon regime in power here since at least Bill Clinton (if not earlier)? ..."
"... On February 14th of this year, following the anti-Flynn coup and Trump's betrayal of his friend, I wrote that "it's over folks" and "Trump betrayed us all". I took a lot of flak for writing this, especially since I had come strongly on Trump's side against Hillary during the campaign. Sadly, I believe that my conclusions in February are now proven correct. ..."
"... I understand while some will want to present this meeting as, if not a success, then at least "good start" or a "semi-success". For one thing, being the bearer of bad news never made anybody popular. Second, those who support Trump or Putin (or both) will want to show that the leader they support achieved something. Finally, if both sides report that the meeting has been a success, who are we to say otherwise? ..."
"... It has cemented Trump irrevocably in the role of clueless neocon waterboy. ..."
"... My first attempt to explain Trump's defection was to liken him to King Lear, desperately seeking validation and alienating the only ones who truly loved him. ..."
"... Hey, give it a couple of weeks (at least!) before declaring that it's Very Close to Nothing. By the way: I bet the Nazi regime in Kiev is shaking in its boots right now ..."
"... So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress' voice. Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. ..."
"... Oh, sorry, I forgot. Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump! Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other. ..."
"... I get the feeling Trump and Putin themselves could actually forge a decent personal working relationship, because there would be a degree of mutual respect and Putin would eventually persuade Trump to see reason on the numerous important issues in which the Russian position is quite simply correct and the US position incorrect – Syria, Ukraine, the fantasy of "Russian interference", Korea, etc. This objective truth simply reflects the capture of US foreign policy by people who have operated it to serve interests other than those of the American nation, so that US policy has been determined not by reality and rational analysis, but ideology and dishonesty. ..."
"... However, it is ultimately of no benefit that there could be such a good personal and working relationship, because as we have seen Trump is a entirely prisoner of the very interest groups that were responsible for distorting US foreign policy in the first place. It's highly unlikely he would or could change much even if he were persuaded of the truth, and if he did make any significant changes he would be impeached or defeated at the next election and replaced by someone more in line with the poisonous US establishment views. ..."
"... Too many, too powerful US establishment groups (many of them not primarily loyal to the US) have an interest in maintaining the delusional and dysfunctional foreign policy we have seen in operation over the past three decades – inevitably, since they crafted that foreign policy foolishness. ..."
"... Another ceasefire for Israel, when they loose ground in Syria, A nice geste by Putin, to get talks started, probably. Russian diplomatic effort, which will sink in the swamp! Trump and Putin do seem to get along, but Trump is under Mike Pence's controll: War, war, and War for Israël and Exxon-mobile. ..."
"... Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job. Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export. ..."
"... The nation shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with Russia. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff earlier explained Ukraine is "the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitary, severing Russia from Europe" – a sinister plot perhaps intended as prelude to nuclear war. ..."
"... Trump agreed to a ceasefire. It happened before: Obama agrees and – oops – the next day American planes bomb Syrian forces. And who ordered it, the president himself or a rogue organization inside (or outside?) Pentagon is anyone's guess. I think it's a wait&see at this point. ..."
First, we have the manner in which the Americans have been preparing the G20 summit. As we all
know, in diplomacy actions count as much, or even more, than words. Here are just a few of the actions
recently taken by the Americans in preparation for the G20 summit and Trump's first meeting with
Putin (in no particular order):
Going down this list, you got to admire the American sense of timing and diplomacy
But, seriously now, it does not really matter if these actions are just the result of imperial
hubris and delusion, a complete lack of diplomatic education, the consequences of simple and straightforward
human stupidity or all part of some diabolical plan to set the US on a collision course with the
entire planet.
What matters is the mind-blowing arrogance of it all, as if the USA were a white knight in
shining armor worthy only of praise and adulation and as if the rest of the planet were composed
of rowdy schoolchildren who needed to heed the words of their principal and start behaving or else
get a good spanking from Uncle Sam.
If that is how Trump hopes to make "America Great Again" he might want to consider other options
as this kind of attitude makes "America" (he means the USA, of course) look not "great" but arrogant,
out of touch and supremely irritating. Let's take on the world, everybody at the same time seems
to be the grand plan of this administration.
The result of all these "diplomatic" efforts were predicable: nothing.
Well, almost nothing. Here is what "nothing" looks in diplomatic language:
According to Foreign Minister
Lavrov Presidents Trump and Putin, were "motivated by their national interests" (who would have
thought?!) and they agree on a number of concrete measures:
an acceleration of the procedure to appoint new ambassadors – RU-US and US-RU they discussed the
Russian diplomatic facilities seized by Obama they create a work group to discuss a number of issues
including terrorism, organized crime, hacking and cybersecurity. they discussed Syria and the Ukraine
and talked for 2 hours and 15 minutes.
According
to RT , Russia and the US agreed on a ceasefire in the Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces
of Syria. That is very good, of course, but this is in the one corner of Syria (southwest) where
very little action is taking place (right now all the important stuff is taking place between Raqqa
and Deir-Az-Sor). Oh, and there are de-escalation zones already in place in the southwest:
So unless Trump and Putin are keeping something really important secret, it seems that this summit
has yielded exactly
what I feared it would : nothing, or something very very close to nothing. If we find out later
that in spite of everything, the two sides did discuss something of importance and agreed on something
important, I will post and update here. And, believe me, nobody will be happier than me if that happens.
But, alas, it appears that many months of a sustained Neocon campaign to make darn sure that
Russia and the US could never seriously collaborate have been very successful.
So where does this all leave us, the millions of people who had at least *some* hopes about
Trump being an outsider who could try to make some real changes happen and maybe liberate the United
States from the Neocon regime in power here since at least Bill Clinton (if not earlier)?
On February 14th of this year, following the anti-Flynn coup and Trump's betrayal of his friend,
I wrote that "it's over folks" and "Trump betrayed us all". I took a lot of flak for writing this,
especially since I had come strongly on Trump's side against Hillary during the campaign. Sadly,
I believe that my conclusions in February are now proven correct.
I understand while some will want to present this meeting as, if not a success, then at least
"good start" or a "semi-success". For one thing, being the bearer of bad news never made anybody
popular. Second, those who support Trump or Putin (or both) will want to show that the leader they
support achieved something. Finally, if both sides report that the meeting has been a success, who
are we to say otherwise?
I don't know about anybody else, but I always have and always will call it as I see it. And what
I see is simply nothing or something very close to nothing. Sorry folks, I wish I could say something
else.
As for apportioning blame for this non-event, I place 100% of the guilt on the US side which did
everything wrong with an almost manic determination and which will now find itself in the rather
unenviable position of fighting pretty much the entire planet all on its own. Oh, sorry, I forgot.
Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump!
Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other.
I'll disagree with the Saker only to say that the meeting did not yield nothing, it yielded
something far worse than nothing. It has cemented Trump irrevocably in the role of
clueless neocon waterboy.
My first attempt to explain Trump's defection was to liken him to King Lear, desperately
seeking validation and alienating the only ones who truly loved him. My next attempt was
to liken him to King Saul, because he appears to have been rejected by God who had sustained his
campaign so brilliantly. Now I've moved on to "So passes Denethor son of Ecthelion."
Nothing works better for increasing your happiness and appreciation of life than minimalizing
your expectations. During the Bush II regime, I counted any day when the US did not attack Iran
as a very good day. Now I count any day when the US does not attack Russia, Iran or North Korea
to be a very good day. Sounds to me like Putin and Trump have avoided all out war and perhaps
move just a tiny bit toward mutual agreement. That's an awesomely good day.
Hey, give it a couple of weeks (at least!) before declaring that it's Very Close to Nothing.
By the way: I bet the Nazi regime in Kiev is shaking in its boots right now
Half an hour was planned, it became two hours and 16 minutes. So one might conclude there was
something to talk about.
Then there is the Trump Merkel difference. The USA is nearly autark, USA's export is something
like five percent of national income. Germany exports, I guess, more than half its national income.
So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according
to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the
continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress'
voice. Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world,
want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want
an need good trade relations with the East, Russia.
Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job. Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties,
no natural borders, dependent on export.
I get the feeling Trump and Putin themselves could actually forge a decent personal working
relationship, because there would be a degree of mutual respect and Putin would eventually persuade
Trump to see reason on the numerous important issues in which the Russian position is quite simply
correct and the US position incorrect – Syria, Ukraine, the fantasy of "Russian interference",
Korea, etc. This objective truth simply reflects the capture of US foreign policy by people who
have operated it to serve interests other than those of the American nation, so that US policy
has been determined not by reality and rational analysis, but ideology and dishonesty.
However, it is ultimately of no benefit that there could be such a good personal and working
relationship, because as we have seen Trump is a entirely prisoner of the very interest groups
that were responsible for distorting US foreign policy in the first place. It's highly unlikely
he would or could change much even if he were persuaded of the truth, and if he did make any significant
changes he would be impeached or defeated at the next election and replaced by someone more in
line with the poisonous US establishment views.
Too many, too powerful US establishment groups (many of them not primarily loyal to the
US) have an interest in maintaining the delusional and dysfunctional foreign policy we have seen
in operation over the past three decades – inevitably, since they crafted that foreign policy
foolishness.
Putin, I think, knows this and hence is unlikely to make any real concessions to get agreements
that will only be subverted or betrayed by the US as other interest groups within the US regime
get the ear of the President or manage to subvert his policies, or by a future US regime.
According to RT, Russia and the US agreed on a ceasefire in the Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda
provinces of Syria.
Wow, what a coincidence that this 'ceasefire' is adjacent to the stolen Golan, that water and
oil rich part of Syria the Israelis STOLE during their 1967 War of Aggression.
This will give Israel time to get all those wounded jihadists medical care in those Golan field
hospitals and at the Ziv Medical Center in Safed, Israel. And give the quisling US Congress time
to reimburse Israel for all those shekels spent caring for and paying the salaries of ISIS/DAESH/al
Nusra terrorists.
cheer up saker. the americans are sending an envoy to kiev tomorrow to pressure them to begin
their first steps agreed to in the minsk accords. (the new york times was so upset about this
that they could not write the words "minsk accords" in their page 1 article today.)
second, the intell community will be asked to justify by evidence their claim of russian hacking.
the audacity of this will leave them gob-smacked. and edgy.
Another ceasefire for Israel, when they loose ground in Syria, A nice geste by Putin, to
get talks started, probably. Russian diplomatic effort, which will sink in the swamp! Trump and
Putin do seem to get along, but Trump is under Mike Pence's controll: War, war, and War for Israël
and Exxon-mobile.
How soon and how the Syrian slitup will be, that is the question.
Half an hour was planned, it became two hours and 16 minutes. So one might conclude there
was something to talk about.
Then there is the Trump Merkel difference. The USA is nearly autark, USA's export is something
like five percent of national income. Germany exports, I guess, more than half its national income.
So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according
to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the
continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress'
voice.
Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world,
want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want
an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job.
Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export.
Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job.
No, and Merkel is clearly not up to the job. She's definitely no Bismarck!
May 15, 2017 Ukraine: US-Installed Fascist Rule in Europe's Heartland. Will Donetsk Rejoin
Russia?
The nation shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with Russia. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff
earlier explained Ukraine is "the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to
effect a military cordon sanitary, severing Russia from Europe" – a sinister plot perhaps intended
as prelude to nuclear war.
Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell Bentley is a former
US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.
The two most powerful nations agree to a cease fire, in less than two hours
Trump agreed to a ceasefire. It happened before: Obama agrees and – oops – the next
day American planes bomb Syrian forces. And who ordered it, the president himself or a rogue organization
inside (or outside?) Pentagon is anyone's guess. I think it's a wait&see at this point.
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first
in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion
about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the
U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.
"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be
an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with
Lavrov.
Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's
role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York
said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to
the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."
U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election
for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts
said represents a top-level threat.
Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more
than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that
was reached by Russia and the United States.
While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia
had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.
Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters
that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan
- another party to the deal.
Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial
and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.
"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."
The problem if multiple personalities syndrome that Trump administration demonstrates that is mentioned
below is a real one. It looks like Tilerson has its own version of foreign policy distinct from Trump.
Haley also has her own definitely distinct and more neocons than Tillerson, and Tillerson did not fired
her for insubordination. Yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative. ..."
"... It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time. ..."
"... Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself. ..."
"... I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement. ..."
"... So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012. ..."
"... I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan? ..."
"... How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable . ..."
"... more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons ..."
"... here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017 ..."
"... The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL. ..."
"... The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes. ..."
"... Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader. ..."
"... Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but... ..."
"... Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree. ..."
"... The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter. ..."
Two national leaders brought their heads of foreign ministry to an international meeting. Score
1 for diplomacy. They didn't bring their generals. And we've all seen how powerfully Russian diplomacy
works. The message to the world and all stakeholders is that it keeps on working - work with it
if you want to get somewhere.
Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not
completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic
consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative.
It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises
if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively
pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog
and actually some stability over time.
I don't think anyone was looking for much out of this, and it was the wrong venue for such.
But the meta-messages and to see how the leaders would interact were the key things, and personally
I'm satisfied.
More info coming...Tillerson says it was a good meeting that went on so long because they had
so much to talk about. Very engaged:
Listen: Tillerson describes
meeting between Trump and Putin . The Duran's Adam Garrie picked up on the last soundbite
in this clip where Tillerson says maybe Russia has the right approach to Syria and maybe we have
the wrong approach. Very egalitarian view, not quite as bombshell as it sounds I think, more a
way of signifying agreement on the (purported) end goals.
Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin
to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will
it obey the commander-in-chief?
Putin, Trump meeting gives
way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical
trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta
message got through to Trump himself.
Everyone seems happy that Trump and Putin shook hands and agreed on something. But wasn't agreeing
on SW Syria easy? Seems that both would want to avoid the messiness of stepped-up Israeli action.
I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone.
But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This
is a fundamental disagreement.
So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is
some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous
region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan
- a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012.
IMO there is a high chance of cw ff leading to threat of US attack in the coming weeks. As
a last-ditch effort to avoid a larger war, Putin might then relent and a allow a division that
makes "Sunnistan" a reality.
I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make
the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this
here:
Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan?
How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting
all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between
the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable .
Well, it appears that the Putin/Abe meet was productive despite being delayed by the meet with
Trump going long, http://tass.com/politics/955268.
TASS has the most detailed report thanks to Lavrov's presser,
http://tass.com/world/955288 "The situation
in Syria, in Ukraine, on the Korean Peninsula, problems of cyber security, and a range of other
issues were discussed in detail," he said, adding that the two leaders "agreed on a number of
concrete things." Just what those "concrete things" are we'll need to wait and see.
Tillerson's answers to question about how much Trump pressed Putin on 'Russian interference'
vaguely implied that the Russians accepted responsibility as he suggested that the Russians were
willing to discuss guarantees against such interference happening in the future.
The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red
scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think
it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems
from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives)
will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL.
The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants
reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how
strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes.
The length of time that this took shows how close to the razor's edge US-Russia relations are.
Care must be taken to avoid a miscalculation.
Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long
said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in
the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather
than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader.
It seems to me that the failure to agree "next steps" coupled with a failure to agree on a
future meeting is significant. And the lack of detail from the Russian side (as per karlof1 @33)
also suggests that the meeting didn't go well.
"Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin
to see what the strength of Trump's power is ... how in control is Trump? One wonders how much
of this meta message got through to Trump himself."
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed
the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but...
@Jackrabbit
Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic
pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree.
The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US
moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy
about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the
matter.
A reminder, and if you've never seen it, how MSM (in this case C-span) broadcasts fake news as
war propaganda- footage from 1991 Gulf War. This was eye opener for me as I recall being totally
sucked in at time by both the CNN and C-Span stories.
"... ... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision
in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin
emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned
that its patience is running out. ..."
"If Putin comes to the conclusion that even if Russia and the U.S. reach agreement, Trump would be
unable to implement it for domestic policy reasons, he would lose interest in seeking an agreement,"
said Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.
... ... ...
Russia and the U.S. have struggled to even set a specific time for Friday's meeting and the White
House says there's "no specific agenda" for it. When the two presidents finally sit down for a talk,
sharp differences remain on a wide range of issues, from Syria and the Ukrainian crisis to nuclear
arms control.
While Trump has said the U.S. and Russia could pool efforts to fight the Islamic State group in
Syria, Moscow's firm support for Syrian President Bashar Assad makes any agreement unlikely.
Moscow responded angrily when Trump ordered a missile strike on a Syrian base in April after a
chemical attack blamed on Assad's forces, and was also vexed by the U.S. downing of a Syrian warplane
in June. After last month's incident, the Russian military suspended a hotline with the U.S. to prevent
mid-air incidents and warned that it would track U.S.-led coalition aircraft as potential targets
over Syria.
And when the White House warned last week that Assad was preparing for another chemical
attack and would "pay a heavy price" if he launches it, Russia responded by offering the
Syrian ruler a tour of its air base.
Even though the Russian and U.S. militaries in Syria have worked out a way to avoid collisions,
the situation could grow more unstable if Putin and Trump fail to get along, Trenin warned.
Bitter differences over Ukraine haven't been resolved. Some U.S. lawmakers have been pushing the
White House to approve the delivery of weapons to the Ukrainian military in response to Moscow's
support for separatists in eastern Ukraine - a move that would cross a red line for the Kremlin.
... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's
decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York.
The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat
and warned that its patience is running out.
Update: As part of the 2+ hour discussion between presidents Trump and Putin,
AP reports that the Russian president asked for "proof and evidence" of Moscow's alleged interference
in the 2016 election which Russia denies . The request was made after Trump confronted Putin about
Moscow's election meddling during their first face-to-face meeting in Germany on Friday, according
to Rex Tillerson who was present in the meeting. The secretary of state told reporters afterward
that Trump opened the conversation by "raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian
interference in the 2016 election."
Putin once again denied Russian involvement, Tillerson said, but Trump "pressed" him on the matter
"on more than one occasion."
'President Putin denied such involvement as I think he has in the past,' he continued.
The Russians, speaking after the meeting, claimed that Trump accepted the denial - but Tillerson
did not. Instead he said the issue may simply be an 'intractable disagreement.' Tillerson also said
the Russians pushed Trump for proof and evidence of meddling, something which the president himself
had doubted in public as recently as Thursday.
"The president at this point pressed him and felt like at this point, let's talk about how do
we go forward,' Tillerson said.
Trump and Putin agreed to explore a "framework" around which they can work to better understand
these types of cyberthreats, the U.S. diplomat said.
"The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S.
relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work ?regarding commitments of noninterference
in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries,"
Tillerson said. "So more work to be done in that regard."
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was in the meeting, said afterward that Trump accepted
Putin's assurances that Russia didn't interfere in the election. But Tillerson, who has publicly
called out Russia for election interference in the past, said he was 'not dismissing the issue in
any way' and did not echo that language.
The secretary of state acknowledged that Putin's insistence that Russia did not interfere would
leave the two countries at an impasse, at least for now. "It's not clear to me that we will ever
come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations," he said.
"So the question is, what do we do now?"
We are confident that the US press, which will not let this topic drop, will come up with some
suggestions.
* * *
Earlier
Following their first ever, 2+ hour meeting which was originally supposed to last only 30-40 minutes,
the question on everyone's mind was what did the two discuss.
So, in addition to the previously discussed ceasefire agreement in Southwest Syria unexpectedly
announced by the two nations, speaking at the beginning of his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin said that during his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, the
two discussed Syria, Ukraine, counterterrorism, and drumroll, the "fight against cyber crime. "
"I had a very lengthy conversation with the President of the United States, there were a lot of
issues such as Ukraine, Syria, other problems, some bilateral issues", according to
Interfax news agency . "We again returned
to the issues of fighting terrorism and cybersecurity," Putin added.
Elaborating after the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump repeatedly pressed
Putin on the matter over the course of their meeting (see below for details).
Putin denied Russia's involvement, and according to a parallel comment from Russia's Sergey Lavrov,
" Trump accepted Putin's assurance of no election hacking ."
Or as Interfax put it:
TRUMP ACKNOWLEDGES ANTI-RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN U.S. ALREADY LOOKING ODD, THAT HE ACCEPTS PUTIN'S
STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER - LAVROV: IFX
However, it appears Lavrov may have taken some artistic liberty, because according to NBC's chief
White House correspondent, one administration official has said Lavrov's comment is " not accurate
"
Pushback already from Trump administration: one official tells
@NBCNews Lavrov's "not accurate" w/this
comment --> https://t.co/URIsFPQYWT
"A cease-fire has been entered into," U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters. This
is the "first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria," he said.
Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone. They were not alone: Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were also present at the talks.
* * *
Earlier, during the press photo session, Trump told the media that "President Putin and I have
been discussing various things, and I think it's going very well."
"We've had some very, very good talks, we are going to have a talk now and obviously that will
continue," Trump added, saying there are hopes of "a lot of very positive things happening."
"It's an honor to be with you, thank you," Trump concluded, offering his hand to Putin.
"I'm delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President," Putin countered. "And I hope,
as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result."
I think a 30 minute meeting that turned into a 2 hour meeting with Putin is much better than the
war with Russia that Hitlery had planned for us. Getting along with Russia is a good thing.
That was just Kabuki theater, really. If Russia had hacked the election, the NSA and the CIA would
have gone back through all of their stored data and found the evidence of it and crucified Trump
and probably taken us to war.
... the planned 30-40-min meeting stretched to 2+ hours perhaps so they could talk about how
to "carve" Syria into various "states" (since the US already has a modern airport in the Northern
reaches of the beleaguered and oppressed sovereign country without the consent and permission
of Syria's Al Assad >>>
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960415000266
) ...
... and how not to hit any of their "flying objects" (jets and drones) trying to keep their
respective MIC and banksters happy funding all these war toys ...
... and the oppressors, at the behest of their (((Red Shield))) masters and its BIS central
banks' ownership of all worldwide central banks (with the exception of Iran, Syria, North Korea
and Cuba), might just be pulling the necessary strings on how to divide the residual loot they'd
get when Syria falls ...
... the ((( Red Shield snake ))) is poised to strike again ...
I have said it before and will say it again, if the NeoCons and NeoLibs fail to find any Russian
State Sanctioned evidence of election tampering or collusion then I would expect a trade deal
with Russia within a year of two. Always better to have Boardroom Wars instead of Hot Wars. For
the down voters may I remind you that Japan attacked the US, US was at war with Germany, do I
need to mention Vietnam. All foes at one time and now trading partners.
Clinton chairman John "Pizza Man" Podesta tells Trump: 'Get a grip'
Mr Podesta hit back in seven
tweets, branding Mr Trump a "whack job".
"Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI
and the CIA Disgraceful!" Mr Trump tweeted on Friday morning from Hamburg.
US canceling the 1902 trade agreement. Metal and other material embargo. Oil and gas embargo.
Then the open sea policy after non-declared economic war started in '38. Kind of like bombing
other countries and having the welcome mat out for them. Sanctions/embargoes are acts of war.
No lasting peace or deep cooperation between the US and Russia will be permitted, until the Khazariabs
approve it, bless it and put their logo (with a micro tax) on it.
I think that CNN is getting its pee-pee slapped pretty hard right now. It has incurred the wrath
of the internet hate machine and its ratings are sliding into the shitter on the eve of a corporate
buyout of its parent company. I'd say that there are pretty good odds that CNN will either not
exist in the near future, or it will exist in name only in the same way that Communist China is
no longer actually Communist.
Putin just handed him the photos of when Bill Clinton "gave a lecture" there for $2 million innturn
for Hillary's handing the Russians 20% of American uranium.
Photos probably show a dozen mixed
midgets peeing on Bill as he has sex with some Russian farm animals.
"It's an honour to be with you, thank you" - Trump to Putin. Now watch Pedo-desta and Mad Maxine
claim this is 'all the proof they need' that Trump is colluding with Putin.
"CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting"
I think
this is fake news. /s/s
If Alaska becomes Russian territory again then Kim's missles will only be able to threaten
Russia. How the hell will CNN beat the war drums for the MIC ?
...and the military industrial complex. Who do you think whispered in First Lady's ear to get
meeting ended?
TILLERSON SAYS NEITHER LEADER WANTED TO STOP MEETING, U.S. FIRST LADY CAME IN AT ONE POINT TO
TRY TO GET THEM TO CONCLUDE: RTRS
Yes, indeed they have. After organizing and taking over Russia in 1917 during the Bolshevik revolution,
when poor Russians had to undergo tremendous suffering caused by the most horrid scum imaginable,
they now know the truth will soon come out. Everything one needs to know.
I'd say it was more likely the people profitting from vast sums of money channelled into the US
military-industrial complex. So many jobs also rely on it that it has become an impossible to
kill program.
For that money the US gets a navy ready at any time to defeat imperial Japan again,
and an army poised to push the Soviet hordes back in western Europe. It's absurd, like a Coyote
cartoon where he is still standing but the ground beneath him has disappeared. Trump is smart,
he can take on the mainstream media, the democrats and the republicans, but he cannot take on
the military industrial complex at the same time and he knows it, whether he can ever or wants
to is the real question.
If Trump left office with the next president no longer beholden to the military industrial
complex, then he would be the greatest US president since George Washington.
So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. Putin is
known to cut meetings short if he finds it's a waste of time.
<<So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. >>
Putin
and Trump enjoy talking to strong leaders, not limp wristed pussies. Even Condy Rice said Soweeto
is considered a 'weak man' by foreign leaders. I guess she's being polite and at least called
him a "man" instead of a tranny.
When will the "McCain" mindset toward Russia end? That being, if we win they lose and vice versa.
Why the US and Russia could not/should not team up to stand against China and both win? We have
so much more with the Russians as a people than we do with the Chinese, as do they.
First off we have the 'news' that hackers have reportedly been breaking into computer
networks of companies operating United States nuclear power stations, energy facilities and
manufacturing plants ,
according to a
new report by The New York Times.
The origins of the hackers are not known. But the report indicated that an "advanced
persistent threat" actor was responsible, which is the language security specialists often use
to describe hackers backed by governments.
The two people familiar with the investigation say that, while it is still in its early
stages, the hackers' techniques mimicked those of the organization known to cybersecurity
specialists as "Energetic Bear," the Russian hacking group that researchers have tied to
attacks on the energy sector since at least 2012.
So that's that 5 people - who know something - suspect it was the Russians that are hacking
US nuclear facilities (but there's no proof).
Next we move to CNN
who claim a 'current and former U.S. intelligence officials' told them
that Russian spies have been stepping up their intelligence gathering efforts in the U.S. since
the election, feeling emboldened by the lack of significant U.S. response to Russian election
meddling .
"Russians have maintained an aggressive collection posture in the US, and their success in
election meddling has not deterred them," said a former senior intelligence official familiar
with Trump administration efforts.
"The concerning point with Russia is the volume of people that are coming to the US. They
have a lot more intelligence officers in the US" compared to what they have in other countries,
one of the former intelligence officials says.
But, according to Steve Hall, retired CIA chief of operations, the Russians could also be
seeking more information on Trump's administration, which is new and still unpredictable to
Moscow
So that's more anonymous sourcing about Russian spies... doing what they would normally do
during a presidential transition.
And so finally, a third story - with
CNN
trotting out former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to pin the 'Russians did
it' tail on the "this is why we lost the election" donkey...
Claiming that the Russians alone were responsible for interference ...
"As far as others doing this, well that's new to me," Clapper, who served under former
President Barack Obama, said during an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room."
"We saw no evidence whatsoever that [there] was anyone involved in this other than the
Russians," he said.
So in summary - 3 stories pinning Russia for shameful acts against 'Murica that just happen
to hit hours before Trump shakes hands with Putin... ensuring that unless Trump slams Putin to
the ground like a wrestling-CNN-logo, he will be adjudged as being soft... and therefore
clearly in cahoots with the Russian leader. Seriously, do the Deep State realy think Americans
are that dumb? (rhetorical question)
I'm making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how
much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has
totally changed my life. This is what I do,..good luck..
www.Jobzon3.com
i made $3 a week delivering the local paper every morning in 1961 when i was ten years
old. Queer professor named wallace waites would stand in his underwear behind his screen door
and beckon me
https://vimeo.com/221102826
((another queer professor named cloyd paskins had a heart attack. He did not die. They
said he got better after working out with waites))
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how
much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has
totally changed my life. This is what I do...
www.jobproplan.com
By "Deep State" and "The Hidden Government" we are referring to the criminal Zionist
group, sometimes called just "the neocons" and sometimes the "Khazarian Mafia." (This group
does NOT include the majority of American Jews, who tend to be centrist and progressive.) But
it does include a smaller subset of the Jewish people. (And a few non-Jewish people like Joe
Biden.)
I just came across this interview from the 1970's with H.W. Rosenthal on the Zionist group
seeking to rule the world. for me it was very illuminating.
I wish we could all stop paying attention to the "war" between Trump and CNN. It's a
distraction from much bigger issues. CNN is not "liberal" media. It is the Deep State, which
is not liberal or conservative. And I can't help but conclude that Trump is a knowing part of
this circus while he leads us into real war under cover of the media war.
Nice try. Really, that was pretty smooth. But gotta call BS on that ... yes, implying
insincerity on your part (with all due respect I suppose).
The shallow play-on-words mixing "liberal" as politically defined with "classic liberal"
as in philosophy, would not fool an informed person. But again, nice obfuscation.
I would say you should be more specific, but I am against almost all stated US foreign
policy, so you're probably right. But if you can be more specific I'll tell you specifically
if you're right about my position. Which US policy do you think I'm against? I'll give you an
honest answer whether I am or not.
No, that's totally cool! I am guessing polar-opposite, so why nitpick.
One may have to take "US interest" position because of loyalty and not because the US has
necessarily acted to deserve this loyalty. The past few decades have been "rough" to say the
least.
Many here totally disagree with you about US foreign policy But Hope that this POTUS can
cause the US to act in a way that would Mutigate this disagreement. Some things are off the
table, but many are likely On The Table with this POTUS.
I do not presume to speak for mister LTER, but I inferred his point was, that the
existence of things that are "off the table" is proof that Trump is some faction of Deep
State, rather than above board on what he sold those of us who voted for him.
That'd be funny if the odds were not that something like that was happening constantly ...
I think all the parties have been at this dance for a long time.
The arguments here are on the definition of labels. Forget the labels it is quite an easy
analysis, centralization of authority vs. decentralization of authority. Call it what you
wish.
You write like you've been conditioned to - you use the words of your masters.
But maybe you're different (I think not): can you define "progressivism" and "communism" ?
I'm a supporter of neither, but I know that in order to cure a disease you have to diagnose
it correctly (the reason why the disease in power have made you misdiagnose it as
"communism").
You're free to send your global warming contribution to China and make your daughter share
a locker room with trannies. No one is stopping you. Release your inner nose breather.
Billy, note that the only changes Trump has made so far have been on these issues. Tranny
bathrooms. Paris Accord. The exact issues that are designed to divide us. I'll give you that
I'd rather have Trump dealing with these issues than Hillary, but have you noticed that the
issues that actually matter because they affect us all -- moar war, moar NSA, moar Deep
State, bigger military budget, moar prison industrial complex, moar debt -- are the same as
they would have been under Hillary?
Would the media be fracturing like it is if Hillary had won? Would the average guy have
ever discovered this thing called the "deep state" if Hillary had won? Would the Clinton
Global Initiative have closed up shop if Hillary had won?
All good questions. I don't know, except obviously the Clinton Global Initiative would
still be going strong had Hillary won.
What I do know is that we're not making any progress towards more individual freedom or
less war, or less control by oligarchs/bankers, which are the issues that matter to me. And
I'm still making my Obamacare premium payment every month. And my taxes are the same. And my
small business red tape is the same.
As for media fracturing, MSNBC has grown in ratings and is now second only to Fox. So
divide and conquer seems to be working even better now. I don't have much a dog in the fight
of whether CNN specifically rates well.
"... Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser. ..."
"... Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together. ..."
"... But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air. ..."
"... Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China. ..."
"... A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built. ..."
"... Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.] ..."
"... Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations." ..."
"... The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda." ..."
"... If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon. ..."
"... Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage. ..."
"... The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides. ..."
"... In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China. ..."
"... Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington. ..."
"... Triangular Diplomacy ..."
"... Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam. ..."
"... It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was. ..."
"... Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon. ..."
"... Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S. ..."
"... The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time. ..."
"... We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening. ..."
"... Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington. ..."
"... Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves. ..."
"... A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia." ..."
"... The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev. ..."
"... As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other. ..."
"... The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more ..."
Top Russian and Chinese leaders are busy comparing notes, coordinating their approach to President
Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg this weekend. Both sides are heralding the degree to which
ties between the two countries have improved in recent years, as Chinese President Xi Jinping's visits
Moscow on his way to the G20. And, they are not just blowing smoke; there is ample substance behind
the rhetoric.
Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in
America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that
the U.S. has made itself into the big loser.
Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the
Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from
each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement
signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions
that have pushed the two countries closer together.
But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence
to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action.
Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea
or in the air.
Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama
administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria
and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters
near China.
But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to "U.S. interests"
in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies
over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.
A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More
likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring
power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart
any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and
China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons
system gets built.
It's almost like the old days when the U.S. military budgeted to fight wars on multiple fronts
simultaneously. Recent weeks saw the following:
–The guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem on Sunday sailed within 12 nautical miles of the
Chinese-claimed Triton Island in the Paracels in the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Ministry
immediately branded this "a serious political and military provocation."
–The U.S. last week announced a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, placed sanctions on a Chinese
bank for its dealings with North Korea, and labeled China the world's worst human trafficker.
–On June 20, President Donald Trump sent off a condescending tweet intimating that, at his
request, China had tried but failed to help restrain North Korea's nuclear program: "It has not
worked out. At least I know China tried." (Over the centuries, the Chinese have had bad experience
with Western condescension.)
Common Concern: Missile Defense
On the eve of his arrival in Moscow, Xi gave an interview to Russia's TASS news agency, in which
he focused on missile defense – an issue particularly close to Vladimir
Putin's heart . Xi focused on U.S. deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missiles to South Korea as "disrupting the strategic balance in the region" and threatening the security
interests of all countries in the region, including Russia and China.
Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure
on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than
his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about
a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February,
Professor J. J. Suh and
I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective
of missile defense systems.]
Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines
of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting
now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations."
The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral
relations and the international agenda."
If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades
ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of
Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests
their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon.
Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense
political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's
principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat
watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon
and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage.
The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million
square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back
to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border
where islands were claimed by both sides.
In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions.
By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more
immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in
the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining
the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China.
Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit
by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated
by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the
imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.
Triangular Diplomacy
Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship
helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four
Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution
in Vietnam.
It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic
attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects
of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.
Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President
Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet
rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.
Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled
to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added
to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two
saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S.
The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S.
bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship
by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced
one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able
to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible
leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.
We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler
heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China
in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union
gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.
Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries,
but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between
Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations
that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their
part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and
were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better
relations with Washington.
A New Reality
Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin
would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached
"unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.
A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight
to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with
its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances
by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia."
The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia
finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic
Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev.
On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive
30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West's
post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia's financial survival.
As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent
positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased
steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that,
despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in
developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other.
The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic,
her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is
no more .
One perhaps can hope that someone in the U.S. government will inform President Trump that his
Russian and Chinese counterparts are singing from essentially the same songbook, the unintended result
of arrogant miscalculations by his immediate predecessors. Implications for U.S. national security
are enormous.
Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the
Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
. A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
Events this past year would make Henry Kissinger roll over in his grave, except he is
somehow still alive. I remember when American diplomats and Generals were skilled and crafty.
Since Bush II, they are mostly ignorant imbeciles who madly threaten and sometimes bomb other
nations at will. They have a weekly meeting with the President to review the kill list of who
they will assassinate each week, usually by drone but also by "Spec Ops" posted in nearly
every nation. This will not end well.
Have to love this guy. The Western nations controlled by the One World/New World Order
globalist 0.1% White Collar business and banking mafia have done everything possible to take
over Russia as they drool over the massive storehouse of natural treasures Russia has. Putin
and the Kremlin leaders along with the military, KGB/FSB, and the Orthodox Church have no
intention of allowing this conquest to happen. Currently NATO has moved troops and missiles
up to the very frontiers of Russia. It has occupied Afghanistan and is moving further into
the Balkans.
The U.S. and E.U. have deliberately fomented trouble inside Russia and former
soviet republics like Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine to install anti-Russian puppet
governments to aid in undermining Russia. When Russia responds in a very careful and
restrained manner as in occupying and annexing the Crimea, which was Russian for centuries
before the Communists "gave" it to Ukraine a few decades ago, the West swiftly puts harsh
economic and financial sanctions on Russia and conspires with the oil and gas companies to
drive prices down on Russia's main sources of revenue.
In desperation Russia is forced into
the arms of her old enemy China.
Now the neo cons and globalists are in an uproar over this
supposed Sino-Russian Alliance--a marriage of convenience only as China needs Russia's
natural resources at cheap prices and Russia needs China to "cover her back". Also China is
increasingly concerned about her own national sovereignty and independence from the NWO. Now
Putin has sent a very clear message to the Western bandits: "Back off".
No doubt Russia
supplied the icbm to North Korea that was set off to coincide with America's Independence
Day.
Putin in a recent interview also pointed out that international cooperation has kept
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Russia has land borders with both North Korea and Iran
and hundreds of extra icbms and atomic warheads which they could easily disassemble and send
to them.
Russia also has the largest military in Europe and the largest nuclear arsenal of
any nation on earth.
The neo-cons and banksters and crapitalists better heed the signs and
back off from Russia. A word to the wise is sufficient. Unfortunately I fear there are very
few wise heads in the Western One World Order hierarchy or their political prostitute
puppets. I hope and pray cooler, wiser heads on all sides will prevail and World War III,
which would destroy all life on this planet, does not happen.
That the objects of PNAC's strategy, the AEI plan, began to cooperate should not surprise
anyone, especially after Bush jr and Obama executed this strategy.
Prof Laslo Maracs of UVA university Amsterdam explains Trump's strategy from that he and
his rich friends understand that continuing PNAC will ruin them, and the USA.
I cannot see any implications for USA security, neither Russia nor China shows any
inclination to attack the USA.
Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military
pressure on North Korea………
Perhaps Xi has countenanced that Kim Jong- un being a titular minor deity through his
grandfather, has millions of followers (believers) and must perform in ways that are hard for
us to fathom. The West would do well to consider his standing at home and act
accordingly.
Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43
and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement,
firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and
dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.
Perhaps this was all a sideshow for the minions at home who crave to 'study war' above all
else. Trump is a deal maker and may surprise us at the G20 by pulling off the Deal of
Deals.
Candidate Trump was very clear in highlighting the stupidity of US policy pushing Russia
into China's embrace. President Trump has continued with the same policy of
antagonizing
both, accelerating the very process he derided. It's all so predictable, and depressing.
Russia and China, on a cultural level, are rather incompatible. Russia is very much part
of the West, while China is clearly East. However, on paper, each has what the other wants
and needs. Russia has resources, land, and military technology, while China has
manufacturing, loads of cash, and demand for Russia's military tech.
There is still a virulent strain of Sinophobia in Russia, especially in the military. It
will probably take a generation, at least, to overcome this. It's not clear that it will
happen at all. However, if current trends continue, it will. The other possibility is that
the two are forced into a closer alliance sooner by US aggression.
But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and
intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for
U.S. freedom of action.
What? You mean that Trump's slumlord son-in-law and his fashion model daughter, neither
having any experience in creating foreign policy, don't have what it takes to deal with
Russia and China in a meaningful, sensible way?
As a slumlord, Jared has that 'My way or the highway" attitude when jacking up rents and
Ivanka knows that a shapely thigh can turn many a head, so they're a
fine
addition to
his foreign policy team!
I can think of nothing better for world peace than a military alliance of Russia and China
plus Iran to counter the axis of evil that is the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.
They want the confrontation to solve internal problem. Also attacking weaker part of
China-Russia alliance is less damaging to US economy the attacking China. Dismembering of Russia
which neocons always wanted would solve some geopolitical problem facing the USA now. Especially
after reckless adventure with the instigating coup in Ukraine.
As Ray McGovern stated "Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but
profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades,
what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser." ... "
A
lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely,
Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring
power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to
thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of
Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other
pricey weapons system gets built."
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness. ..."
Trump's Putin Test
The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of
weakness.
July 5, 2017 7:32 p.m. ET
The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness.
Donald Trump thinks of himself as a great judge of character and
master deal-maker, and that could be a dangerous combination when the President meets with
Vladimir Putin for the first time Friday during the G-20 meeting in Germany. The Russian
strongman respects only strength, not charm, which is what Mr. Trump will have to show if he
wants to help U.S. interests abroad and his own at home.
The meeting comes amid the various probes of Russian meddling into the 2016 election, and
Mr. Trump's curious refusal to denounce it. There's no evidence of Trump-Russia campaign
collusion, nor that Russian interference influenced the result. But the Kremlin's attempt was a
deliberate affront to democracy and it has done considerable harm to Mr. Trump's Presidency.
Mr. Trump should be angry at Mr. Putin on America's behalf, and his apparent insouciance has
played into Democratic hands.
The irony is that on policy Mr. Trump has been tougher on Mr. Putin than either of his two
predecessors. Over Kremlin objections, the U.S. President has endorsed Montenegro's entry into
NATO and new NATO combat deployments in Eastern Europe. He has approved military action against
Russian ally Bashar Assad in Syria even after Russian threats of retaliation.
The White House was also wise to visit Poland a day before he meets Mr. Putin. In Warsaw on
Thursday he can reinforce traditional American support for Polish freedom and assert his
personal and public support for NATO's Article 5 that an attack on one alliance member is an
attack on all.
Perhaps most important, Mr. Trump has unleashed U.S. oil and gas production that has the
potential to weaken Mr. Putin at home and in Europe. The Russian strongman needs high oil
prices and wields the leverage of natural-gas supplies over Europe, and U.S. production
undermines both.
Yet Mr. Putin will be looking to see if he can leverage Mr. Trump's desire for better
U.S.-Russia relations to gain unilateral concessions. One Kremlin priority is easing Western
sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine and President Obama's December 2016 sanctions for its
election interference. The Russian foreign ministry is in particular demanding that the U.S.
let Russia reopen compounds in Maryland and New York that Mr. Obama shut down.
Mr. Trump will be tempted to oblige because the compounds are ultimately of no great
consequence, but the political symbolism of reopening them would still be damaging if the
President gets nothing in return. Mr. Putin still denies any Russian election hacking, and to
adapt Michael Corleone's line to Carlo in "The Godfather Part II," he should stop lying because
it insults our intelligence. Mr. Trump should at least follow French President Emmanuel
Macron's precedent and issue a face-to-face public rebuke unless Mr. Putin apologizes.
Neoliberal guardian presstitute in all glory... It's a real Orwellian hate hour. Those presstitutes
do love Saudi monarchy, though
But with is interesting that the tone of comments recently changes and composition of audience changed
too. the number of hateful comments about Russia is astounding, and suggest some manipulation of public
opinion. It is plausible that some or most comments are produced by government agencies or with the
help of volunteers. It is difficult to see which comments are genuine and which are generated.
Guardian,Telegraph,BBC,CNN,CBS,NBC ... all the letters of the alphabet have no intention of
questioning US claims of authority to invade, attack, destroy nations who they decide are to be
destroyed.... Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.etc.
Bush Cameron,Obama,Clinton, ´we came , we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha´ .....
I never heard Putin say anything like that..... push back against US war mongering and UK EU
support or indifference to 25 years of destruction and mayhem... not Russian tv
Bah: that's crap. WikiLeaks is still producing relevant stuff on the DNC and HRC as it goes along,
and on the military-industrial complex in general. There's nothing wrong with that - and those
that think it's 'corrupted' merely because it kicked over a beloved seizure horse really need
to seriously re-examine their biases. As for this:
Their main motivation seems to be that acknowledging that Putin is a vicious dictator who
interfered in US election denigrates Wikileaks.
??? Who in the hell thinks that? In short: citation needed. Badly.
I'm sorry as much as I would like to jump on the bandwagon (and there's much wrong in Russia),
but isn't this article speaking for exactly what the police accused the writer accused of - journalism?
If he indeed came on a tourist visa and does investigative work, that is in a shady area, whatever
the country. If I come to the U.S. and speak to groups as the Resistance, Black Lives Matter and
democratic party leaders, I'd hardly classify as a tourist, no?
Given the truly odious regimes we do business with and never criticise, it is telling that we
never hear anything positive about Russia. Nor did we when it was part of the Communist USSR.
It can't be an orchestrated US led campaign of destabilisation to allow the West access to those
huge oil and gas resources!!!
>>"Ah, yes I remember Russia invading several countries in the last, lets say 15 years. Damn,
we should keep a close eye on them."
Your reply appears to be alluding to several recent US led attacks on Arab regimes. Accordingly,
in so far as it engages my observation that Putin's Russia approaches a fascist dictatorship that
is a threat to countries on its borders, to the EU and to liberal democracy, you suggests one
of four things:
(a) The US likewise approaches a fascist dictatorship
(b) The US poses a similar threat to the EU
(c) The US poses a similar threat to liberal democracy
(d) The US poses a similar threat to the countries on Russia's borders.
Plainly, however, all of (a) to (d) are false.
I conclude that the evident pleasure you take in what seems to you to be a clever comment is smug
and delusional.
These days Russia woos like a gangster, not a lover.
That's not the impression I get, at all. I find them to be relatively restrained, thoughtful
and civil. Especially given the expansionist antics that NATO has got up to over the years.
It's easy to point the finger at Moscow, a habit that is over a century old. If the west had
taken Thatcher's advice over the handling of the USSR, none of this would have probably come to
pass.
It all really boils down to what kind of facts he was after. To, me, his whole piece sounds pretty
much like hate-mongering, and yes it also can be classified as propaganda. So, the dude went to
Russia pretty much with an agenda of collecting facts fitting with his already planned and pre-commissioned
book, and then is so much 'surprised' when the trip is classified as professional work , not tourism.
And when they asked him to sign paperwork confirming that he was travelling as a pro - he called
it 'fake'. Wonderful way of presenting things that rivals the tv show he is so much disgusted
with. Btw, if you want to enjoy real Orwellian hate-hour - just travel to US and turn on CNN ,
or any other mass media tv channel.
kleptocratic clique
-- just like Trump and May
Nazi weren't a different, long extinct species, they're alive and well as Rethugricans and Torys,
today, mostly.
The UK Empire and the USA Empire are among the greatest evil the world has seen.... and they need
enemies to maintain war profits.
Interesting article, but let's be honest. It has become long clear that non-Western nations can
not be viewed with Western social and political goggles. Putin might not meet many of the check
boxes that symbolize Western (Democratic Values), neither does the US when we take a good close
look or any of the other Western countries.
Point being: hate mongering by Russian TV is being seen as scary yet most Russian view Western
Media as Hate-Mongers against Russia.
Tell me: Who is right here?
Yet another article that fails to face up to the West's abysmal failure in Russia in the 1990s.
Then, they thought the West was friendly to the new non-Communist Russia. A Russia that had given
up its Colonial Empire than any nation in the West managed.
The Yeltsin years saw a rise in the death rate, a shrinking of the economy and vast amounts
of public property pass into the hands of crooks. This happened thanks to crackpot New Right schemes
that issued shares as individual property of the company workers. Outside of New Right fairy tails,
it was absolutely predictable that almost all of them would be sold for immediate cash profit.
And not unexpected that it was crooks who scooped the big prizes.
Setting up genuine collectives in which you can't sell your share for cash might have worked.
Anathema to the New Right, even though such schemes work and there need not be anything leftist
about them.
So, years of miserable failure under Yeltsin. A recovery under Putin, whom polls show to be
one of the most popular Russians ever. Though coming second to Stalin, and Western 'experts' should
be wondering why instead of sneering at it from what they suppose to be a position of superior
wisdom.
Protestors say that this was all wrong. That the majority who still back Putin are not allowed
to do this, for unexplained reasons.
General Russian intolerance for the tiny minority nostalgic for the years of Russia's decline
and humiliation is regrettable. But hardly unexpected. Do you think Britons would be any more
tolerant had they been though something similar? You need only look at Northern Ireland and the
dominant DUP to get the answer.
Or UKIP, which surged until the Tories took over many of its policies.
Don't be lazy, read the report of UN inspection group report about gas attacks in 2013, which
freely available online, before making whose baseless accusations. Or just watch
the video http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Carla Del Ponte ex-leading member of a UN commission of inquiry saying that rebels used sarin.
Sorry, were you there on a work visa or a holiday visa? And what was the work visa for? It sounds
to me like you've been pulled up and let off lightly for doing something you know better than
to do.
-->
The new Russia is a reflexion of western policy, the more the west interfere tne more nationalistic
and oppressive they will become. It seems Mr Putin may have detractors and yes he is becoming
ever more authoritarian but he still has popular support as far as I'm aware.
This is a issue that the Russian people will resolve in their own time in their own unique
manner, interference simply closes ranks. There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize Russia
by the western press yet the west allies its self with far more oppressive regimes, it is a glaring
double standard, this alone makes me question the validity of all anti Russian articles.
Mr Putin has a habit of serving radioactive tea to his fellow citizens so if invited to dinner
I would insist on a food taster, that alone wouldn't stop me going if invited, not that our secret
services are beyond such nefarious activitys.
The fact is that four out of five Russians like the status quo, don't like being falsely accused
of 'invading' Ukraine or 'stealing' Crimea, don't like Poland facilitating NATO aggression, don't
like being denounced (by neocons, already) for doing the dirty work of cleaning out ISIS in Syria.
In general they don't like foreigners lecturing them on how to become more like the Europe
or America which have so often tried to conquer and plunder them- unsuccessfully. They still remember
what neoliberal economics did to the country after communism packed up.
They want to be Russians, and sometimes they express that preference somewhat crudely. They
think it takes a strongman to hold the place together, be he Nevsky, Ivan, Peter the Great, Suvorov,
Stolypin or Stalin. They judge the latest iteration of the strongman figure rather less dictatorial
and punitive than his predecessors.
Since the RF is slowly and fitfully becoming more capitalist and more Christian, why not stop
riling it and concentrate on the world's really bad actors- instead of portraying Putin as a modern
Blofeld, because the military industrial complex needs more arms orders?
Here is someone who is basically a journalist who travels to Russia and gets a job thus breaking
the laws about tourism and work that exist everywhere in the world particularly in Britian see
Brexit problems He is arrested and given a small fine whats his problem?
His function as a tourist/spy journalist is to write an article attacking every aspect of Russia
,its people and government.
What is behind all this insane talk about the Russians the Russians?
Its quite simple really. America has ways believed that its destiny is to rule and control the
world.
Its main enemy has always been the British which is why it supported Germany in WW1 AND The Nazis
in WW2 confidently expecting Britiain to be invaded and defeated (there was no way that had America
could have helped Britain if this had happened at such a late stage.
After WW2 there was Russia to contend with.Of course there was no real threat but the cold war
kept the US defence industry going and gave Americans good jobs
With the collapse of the Soviet Union the full greed of America was unleashed which has resulted
in an appallingly broken nation with two thirds of Americans living in appalling conditions while
the rich get richer every day. In this situation there is only one thing to be done ..bring on
the big Russian Bear. Nothing makes poor people forget their misery like being frightened and
having someone to hate. Its true Russia also has750 nuclear missiles ready to fire at the west
and that does irritate Americans but its nothing compared to America
America is trying to humiliate Russia by destroying Russias only ally in the Middle east Syria
and has used the western media to use every trick to demonise Assad
Will America actually destroy the world as a result of all this? Possibly if not probably
Meanwhile the best advice is stop reading articles attacking Russia Support Putin and Assad and
if you cant ,go on holiday and wait for the nuclear cloud coming soon to a town like yours....
Let me understand something. You go to Russia and called the Russian government a kleptocracy
and the police as thuggish then expect to be treated with respect and with love. Come to New York
with that nonsense and you may well end up in our local hospital if you're lucky.
-->
RoeMaporix asked: "Does anyone over here actually like Putin?"
No doubt I'll get labelled a 'Putinbot', but I reckon there could be worse people in charge
of Russia. Alas Yeltsin and his entourage encouraged the Russian mafia (oligarchs) so much that
Putin had a hell of a job to try and clear up the mess he left.
It amuses me that the mafia trusted him so much that they installed him, and then he turned
on them (moral: never trust a cop). Unfortunately to make any inroads into the gangster state
he took over, he had to act like a gangster himself, but you only have to look at his enemies
to see that out of a very bad choice, he was probably the best.
Ordinary Russians seem to like/approve of him, and that is all that matters for me, he reflects
their values (unpopular as they may be in the 'liberal' west.)
He also strikes me as a very clever man who goes his own way (which are virtues I respect)
who also surrounds himself with very clever advisors.
Yes, coupled with the pre-crime in Syria it really does sound like the drumbeat for war is starting..oh
and for an excellent set of responses to the first "chemical attack" ignore the massively biased
and under researched hogwash from the OPCW and check out Theodor Postol's papers, and also Sy
Hersh' excellent piece in Die Welt this week..No, I won't provide links. If people are really
interested in finding out the truth, a little self-reliance is necessary these days..
You have not been in a British Cell, by the sound of it.
Navalny was posting from his cell on the internet.
Here they take your glasses away so that you cannot see.
We had enough of so much sugar pushed down our throats.
Propaganda unlimited.
Tourists should walk round Red Square and go to the Bolshoi, not interview politicians or visit
environmental disaster zones, or meet teenage supporters of Putin
I know of people who got barred from entering the UK, and even worse barred from entering the
US because of their religion.
It is a fact that troublemakers are not welcome in any country, except Iraq and Libya.
"... Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. ..."
"... In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House ..."
"... Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action. ..."
"... Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control. ..."
"... We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. ..."
"... For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. ..."
"... Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. ..."
"... Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts. ..."
"... As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians. ..."
First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have "disagreements". The
sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally),
but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks
the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course.
In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running
the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of
course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the "sidelines" of a G20 conference is bordering
on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a "Camp
David" like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume
100% good will on both sides, meeting on the "sidelines" of an already big conference just won't
make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have
done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that
so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.
Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive
outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out
of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already
know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic",
so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for
political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any
independent action.
Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent
and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and
imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria
clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control.
We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented
to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views
of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything
remotely resembling any kind of vision. Yet these two "geniuses" seem to be in charge.
For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations.
We should stop kidding ourselves and stop pretending like there is anybody to talk to for the Russians.
At best, they are dealing with a Kindergarten. At worst, they are dealing with an evil Kindergarten.
But either way, there is nobody to talk to on the US side, much less so somebody to begin solving
the many issues that need solving.
I will admit that I did have high hopes for Trump and his apparent willingness to sit down and
have an adult conversation with the Russians. I was especially inspired by Trump's repeated rejection
of the Ziomedia's narrative about Russia and by what appeared to me as his "no nonsense" approach
towards getting things done. I wrote many articles for this blog saying that having hopes (not expectations!)
for Trump was the right thing to do. And, frankly, I think that at the time it was. Last
Fall I even wrote an entire chapter on this topic in the book "
Russian Military Power 2017 " report. Since it is pretty well written, I actually recommend that
you download and read it: it is a mix of pretty good information about the Russian Armed Forces and
the garden variety nonsense about Russian hackers and their cyber-threat to US and its allies. Just
set aside the clearly politically-induced nonsense and you are left with a rather well made summary
of what the Russian Armed Forces are up to these days.
I have to thank the DIA for this report: it made me feel young again, like I was in the 1980s
when all the students of warfare and of the Soviet military were reading these annual "Soviet Military
Power" reports with great interest. But other than making some of us feel young, the real purpose
of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era "Soviet Military Power"
series: to justify an increase in "defense" (i.e. "aggression") spending by showing how scary these
evil Commies/Russkies were/are.
This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination
of the folks at the Pentagon. Far from coming up with anything novel or interesting, they are bringing
back into service stuff which for years had been collecting dust in the memories of now mostly retired
Cold Warriors. It is rather pathetic, really.
Over the past 30 years or so, Russia went from being the Soviet Union, to being a Somalia-like
"democratic hell" during the 1990s, to becoming a completely new entity – a "New Russia" which is
dramatically different from the Soviet Union of the 1980s. In contrast, the US got completely stuck
in its old patterns, except for this time they are "the same, but even worse". If the US did not
have nukes that would almost be okay (after all, the world can let "Uncle Sam" slowly lose his sclerotic
brain, who cares?) but when a nuclear superpower is acting like an out-of-control rogue state, this
is very, very, scary.
So back to our G20 meeting again. The first thing which needs to be said is that Trump is weak,
extremely weak: he goes in with the Ziomedia and Congress hating him and with a basically treacherous
White House team clearly controlled by Pence, Kushner and the rest of the Neocon crazies. To make
things worse, Trump can offer the Russians absolutely nothing they would want or need.
Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already
done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger,
this is confirmed by
international organizations and by the
private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far
more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist
protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. Likewise, the Russian defense
industry has successfully adapted to the total severance by the Ukronazi regime of all the defense
contracts with Russia and now 100% Russian military systems and parts are being produced in Russia
at a cheaper price and of a higher quality. Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it
pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the
Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts.
Trump could, in theory, offer the Russians to stop sabotaging the peace process in Syria and the
Russians would surely welcome that. But since the US policy of illegal air and missile strikes combined
with a deployment of US forces on the ground in Syria is failing anyway, see
here and here ,
the Russians are going to get what they want whether the US wants it or not.
As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists
are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about
intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached
what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic,
unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything
to offer the Russians.
In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority
the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas.
And Ukraine - without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe.
He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.
Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests,
including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).
If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocons fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed
further regardless.
I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see "Nikki" as a person, with personal
ideas. She doesn't recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever
she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago." ..."
"... A new study on inequality in Russia, published in February by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets, and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse, according to this English summary. ..."
"... So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system. ..."
"... S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow. ..."
"... In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion. ..."
Posted on
July 4, 2017 by Yves
Smith By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
Not since the German government arranged for Vladimir Lenin to return to Russia, crossing German
territory in a sealed train on April 16, 1917, has a foreign state at war with Russia done something
as revolutionary as the US Senate did on June 15, 2017. That is when, by a vote of 98 to 2, the senators
began the process of attacking the Russian oligarchs. They are the men who have dominated the Russian
economy for more than twenty years, concentrating more national wealth in their hands than can be
found in any other major state in the world today.
Unremarked by the senators themselves; unreported by the American press; and unnoticed, almost,
in Russia, the new measure - if adopted by the full Congress and signed into law by President Donald
Trump - will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories
and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US companies,
bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad. If targeting the oligarchs is followed by
formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad. The Communist Party
of the Russian Federation hasn't contemplated this much.
Senate Bill S. 722 started in March with Iran as its target. For short, it was called the ''Countering
Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017''. Title I of the bill and 29 pages of its provisions
deal with Iran. Then Title II was added. It runs for 94 pages and targets Russia. Read the text in
full here
.
The Anglo-American business media have reported the bill as an escalation in US economic sanctions
against Russian targets, extending beyond the oil and gas sector. The Wall Street Journal
interpreted the legislation as an attempt to "wrest more control of Russia policy from the Trump
administration". The Financial Times
reported
the bill would "tighten existing sanctions and threatens to broaden the restrictions from energy
and banking to metals, mining, railways and shipping."
The newspaper failed to read the small print, noticing few of the novel details,
except for one - the bill's threat to strike at European companies engaged in building and operating
the new Russian gas pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream II. According to Section 232, the US will prohibit
a company from "mak[ing] an investment described in subsection (b) or sells, leases, or provides
to the Russian Federation, for the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, goods, services,
technology, information, or support described in subsection (c)- (1) any of which has a fair market
value of $1,000,000 or more; or (2) that, during a 12-month period, have an aggregate fair market
value of $5,000,000 or more."
In practice, as the text of the bill continues, this is aimed at all Russian exports of energy,
including pipelines under the Black Sea and in the Far East, and tanker shipping, particularly the
oil and gas tanker company, Sovcomflot. Privatization of part of the state shareholding in Sovcomflot,
which has been postponed for years, has been promised by federal property agency officials for later
this month.
However, the Senate bill threatens to sanction any company, US or other, which makes an investment
of up to $10 million "if the investment directly and significantly contributes to the ability of
the Russian Federation to privatize state-owned assets in a manner that unjustly benefits- (1) officials
of the Government of the Russian Federation; or (2) close associates or family members of those officials."
That puts the kybosh on Gennady Timchenko, front-runner for the Sovcomflot share sale, and father-in-law
of Gleb Frank, son of the chief executive of Sovcomflot, Sergei Frank. For background, read
this .
But the Senate bill goes much further than attacking foreign investment in share sales for Russian
state companies. It attacks the shareholding control of most of the country's resource assets – that's
to say, the oligarchs. Section 241 of the new bill is entitled "Report on Oligarchs and Parastatal
Entities of the Russian Federation."
Read carefully
.
"(a) In general.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of
State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed report on the following:
(1) Senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, including the following:
(A) An identification of the most significant senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in
the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth.
(B) An assessment of the relationship between individuals identified under subparagraph (A) and
President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian ruling elite.
(C) An identification of any indices of corruption with respect to those individuals.
(D) The estimated net worth and known sources of income of those individuals and their family
members (including spouses, children, parents, and siblings), including assets, investments, other
business interests, and relevant beneficial ownership information.
(E) An identification of the non-Russian business affiliations of those individuals.
(2) Russian parastatal entities, including an assessment of the following:
(A) The emergence of Russian parastatal entities and their role in the economy of the Russian
Federation.
(B) The leadership structures and beneficial ownership of those entities.
(C) The scope of the non-Russian business affiliations of those entities."
(3) The exposure of key economic sectors of the United States to Russian politically exposed persons
and parastatal entities, including, at a minimum, the banking, securities, insurance, and real estate
sectors.
(4) The likely effects of imposing debt and equity restrictions on Russian parastatal entities,
as well as the anticipated effects of adding Russian parastatal entities to the list of specially
designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the
Department of the Treasury.
(5) The potential impacts of imposing secondary sanctions with respect to Russian oligarchs, Russian
state-owned enterprises, and Russian parastatal entities, including impacts on the entities themselves
and on the economy of the Russian Federation, as well as on the economies of the United States and
allies of the United States."
The senators voted in favour without deciding on a definition of Russian oligarch, corruption,
"closeness to the regime", "relationship to President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian
ruling elite", or "parastatal". Still, the meaning and intention are as clear as the US Air Force's
MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) – the bunker buster. The targeting of Section 241 includes almost
every major Russian corporation, its control shareholders, associated banks, and their offshore businesses.
The stated aim is nothing less than to destroy those of them who side with the Kremlin; recruit the
remainder for US-backed regime change; and pit each against the other, all against the Kremlin.
Selective oligarch targeting is already in effect;
click to open for the current list. Timchenko has been sanctioned by the US and the European
Union since 2014. Other oligarchs also proscribed include Sergei Chemezov, head of the state asset
holding, Russian Technologies (Rostec); Yury Kovalchuk of Bank Rossiya; Boris and Arkady Rotenberg,
who control SMP Bank plus pipeline and infrastructure businesses, and Roman Rotenberg, Boris's son;
Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft; Nikolai Shamalov, also of Bank Rossiya and father of Kirill
Shamalov, Putin's son-in-law; and Vladimir Yakunin, former head of state-owned Russian Railways.
The Christmas dinner which Putin has hosted each year since the war started in Ukraine identifies
by name four dozen potential targets in the latest act of US war. Read the guest list
for 2014 ;
for 2015 ; and
for 2016 .
Missing from the official sanctions lists so far, but with substantial US assets, are Anatoly
Chubais, head of the state high-technology holding Rusnano;
Mikhail Abyzov , financial backer of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and minister of open government
in his cabinet; and Mikhail Fridman of the Alfa Bank, LetterOne and Vimpelcom groups. Vimpelcom has
been prosecuted for corruption by the US Department of Justice and fined $397.6 million, the ninth
largest such penalty in US history. More recently, Alfa was
targeted for allegedly operating clandestine connections with the Trump presidential campaign.
Two of the oligarchs with valuable residential assets in New York, and solid relationships with
Putin, are Oleg Deripaska (lead image), who controls the state aluminium monopoly Rusal; and Roman
Abramovich, the control shareholder of the Evraz steel group, which runs steel and pipemills in the
US and Canada. Deripaska owns at least two homes in Manhattan, but is
prevented from living there by a longstanding US visa ban which his Washington lobbyist has been
unable to remove. For Deripaska's New York assets, read
this ruling of April 25, 2017, by New York Supreme Court Judge Anil Singh.
Source:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=pFEUA7VGZSJVzEDl_PLUS_NHiTg==&system=prod
An unredacted version of the text of the order can be read
here
. This reveals that Deripaska continues to be targeted by a US visa ban. One of the redactions
Deripaska lawyers have obtained in the court docket reads: "Deripaska emphasizes that his access
to New York is blocked because of a visa problem. Although he has been able to enter New York on
a diplomatic visa, his visits to New York since 2009 have been limited to ten trips for a total of
less than 30 nights. When he was directed by the court to make an effort to attend a trial as a witness
in a case in New York in the Fall of2015, he applied for a visa, but his request was denied."
To view Abramovich's homes on East 75 th Street, Manhattan,
click to open .
Another way to anticipate who will be informally targeted by the US shortly - formally later -
is to look at the concentration of Russian wealth, and identify Russia's ultra high net worth individuals,
the multi-millionaires. By world standards, the Russian count is in the top-20, but trails far behind
the US, China, and several European and Pacific Rim countries.
But when the count is of billionaires and of concentration of national assets in their hands,
Russia leads. In its latest
Global Wealth Report for 2016, Credit Suisse reports: "According to our estimates, the top decile
of wealth-holders owns 89% of all household wealth in Russia. This is significantly higher than any
other major economic power: the corresponding figure is 78% for the United States, for example, and
73% for China. The high concentration of wealth in Russia is reflected in the fact that it has an
estimated 96 billionaires – a total exceeded only by China with 244, and the USA with 582."
The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and
other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth
for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along
with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse
report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago."
"Household wealth in Russia grew rapidly in the initial years of this century, as the country
boomed along with global commodity markets. Between 2000 and 2007, wealth per adult rose eightfold.
Since 2007, however, growth has been slow and uneven – up 14% to date in ruble terms, but down 56%
when measured in current USD, due to ruble depreciation. The USD–RUB rate rose from 25 in 2007 to
34 in mid-2014, and then shot up to 60 by the end of 2014 due to the imposition of financial sanctions.
The rate was 64 in mid-2016. While household wealth per adult has risen from USD 2,940 in 2000 to
USD 10,340 today, the current level is barely above that of ten years ago."
A new study on inequality in Russia,
published in February
by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets,
and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the
Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse,
according to this English summary.
So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the
President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like
Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system.
In the past, there was a brief attempt by the US intelligence services to target some of the oligarchs.
In 2010, when Admiral Dennis Blair was Director of National Intelligence (DNI), his annual threat
assessment for the US Senate Intelligence Committee
reported "[there is] a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among government, organized
crime, intelligence services, and big business figures. An increasing risk from Russian organized
crime is that criminals and criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied
actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets." Implied but
unnamed were Alexei Miller (Gazprom), Deripaska (aluminium), and Suleiman Kerimov (gold).
A year later, Blair's successor as DNI, Lieutenant-General James Clapper, repeated the line: "The
nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among some government officials, organized crime, intelligence
services, and big business figures enhances the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine
competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets."
Read more .
The DNI annual reports were no more than that – no action was recommended, and none followed.
S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House
cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme
of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions,
with or without the formal orders to follow.
In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint
of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary.
So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a
call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.
Trump veto, I suspect. For "Fake News" reasons. Doubt an over-ride. Let's get this over with,
and move onto common sense. American legislators are clueless as always, but the blob remains
on the attack.
It passed the Senate 98-2, I don't know why you doubt an over ride. Do you think 32 Senators
will change their mind or that it won't get 2/3 of the House?
The Bill effectively requires Europe to shoot themselves in the other foot or cease using USD
for exchange in Russian trade.
Europe's problem will be Poland where fear and trembling of Russia finds its European root.
The Polish Government would choose poverty before Russian trade and the country has worked assiduously
to build connections and friendships in the EC and parliament. In fact Poland has been America's
'foot in the door' in Europe and the first shipment of US fracked gas has already been received
in that country.
If America can quickly build the LNG carriers needed for the trade there may be a prospect
of keeping US fracking alive whilst diminishing Russian trade but this is contrary to European
interests at a time when the neocon influence in Washington is driving many former friends away.
And now The Koreans Have Launched An ICBM That Could Reach Sarah Palin's Porch In Alaska OMELG!!!
Except the Chinese and Russians say it was only an IRBM!!!! And the Pentagram is gearing up for
another "stop the WMDS how dare you not kowtow to Uncle Sam exercise!!!!"
And even my unpolitical spouse, who nonetheless grew up ducking and covering under her grade
school desk, is feeling the queasy willies, and asking anxious questions, about nuclear weapons
and what is going on, that I have to craft careful answers to.
Forking rotten stupid humans. Could and have screwed up a pretty lovely planet
On a local note, our "neighbors" are putting on what sounds like the start of the Tet offensive,
fireworks and some gunfire, and the local cops in response to a phone call said they are not going
out this national holiday celebration to enforce the law against what some Americans think of
as "celebration." My dogs are going nuts from the explosions, and bits of smoldering guts from
the skyrockets and "mortar-launched display shells and aerial bombs" are drifting down on our
roof and cars and garden and the shade cloth we've stretched over the patio.
Oligarchs should be targeted by the law. Few acquired their billions ethically, fairly, or
as a result of activities that are useful to humanity in general. Here are some more oligarchs
who should be targeted:
will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories
and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US
companies, bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad . If targeting the oligarchs
is followed by formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad.
What about their football or basketball teams, or soccer clubs?
" to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression."
reminds me a bit about a UK news headline earlier this year, running along the lines of: "In
order to thwart Russian aggression, we're sending UK soldiers to their border" a border 2,000+
km from the UK
We have to be more aggressive than they are in order to make them less aggressive. Are they
less aggressive because we're more aggressive, or are they less aggressive because our aggression
will make them more passive? The US Congress gotta know.
And when will the US Congress write a bill to support the American people against their own
aggressive Oligarchs?
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on
July 1, 2017 by mike
I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely
necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him
in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented
holies.
President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters,
and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists
- the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been
able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no
limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that
are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.
Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator
Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress.
Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures,
whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how
unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.
I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks,
and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks
have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like
lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.
Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and
to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have
been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's
election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while
the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to
tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.
Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and
do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military,
and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and
weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."
When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every
bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and
would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving
behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken
chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist
fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going
on, Ms. Mika?
But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika,
who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in
crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.
Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly
committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary
Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic
and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.
These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks,
and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness
- but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of
anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.
As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining
bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality
is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria
Recent
hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking
hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared
to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing
to discourage the politicians.
On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division
at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security
and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee
- that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.
Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed
the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.
But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed
to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged
Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington,
Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another
bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into
state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant
Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions
were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information
to sell on the Internet.
Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases
have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least
one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration
database were cyber-criminals.
Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database
last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted
personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged
or altered.
The Actions of Cybercriminals
That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified
before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video )
that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly
for the purpose of selling personal information."
Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to
have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to
gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses
– is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.
That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack
their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona
databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack
their voter registration and other databases.
"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding
at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]
State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel
for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year
is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in."
Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."
And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according
to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people
trying to get into it," he said.
Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected
193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared
to be trying to "do harm."
Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name
and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted
network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her
that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored
"frequently."
James Comey's Role
The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking
state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to
the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind
efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.
Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief
Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities"
and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and
August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.
The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data
even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia
Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4."
The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.
Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say."
But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it
cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.
It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories
with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later,
the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was
"no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.
On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement
that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only
a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious
cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral
databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS
[Russian Intelligence Services]."
Suspect Claims
But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but
highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators
from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited
a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly
Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.
But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the
architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority
of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."
Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from
CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the
Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included
a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state
or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers
and Russian intelligence.
Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the
background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump
campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding
the e-mail disclosures.
But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published
by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's
military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing
election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses
believed to be local government organizations.
But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution.
The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the
NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been
used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.
A Checkered History
So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases
reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community.
Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but
no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was
ever suggested.
Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely
outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal
voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.
When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might
use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally
unprepared to answer the question.
"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better
understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what
is there and studying it."
In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI
was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by
the hope of personal gain.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected]. Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's permission.
Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's
energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening
European energy options.
The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion
for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into
the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with
it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help
supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would
help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against
it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through
Ukraine's pipeline system.
But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded its tariff-free status
as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade goods into the Russian
market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not be able to compete on
economically-favorable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick when construction of the
South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about $2 billion annually
in transit fees. But
pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans
were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was
not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.
Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important,
Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because
(a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine
loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical
reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned
into a wall. Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded
to announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press
will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential
to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently
so that Europe continues to evolve
ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which
was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas
for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the
Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.
"... If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace? ..."
"... You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed. ..."
"... Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it ..."
"... I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. ..."
"... Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass. ..."
"... So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..). ..."
"... Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. ..."
Russia has had no leader equal in stature and public support to Putin since Stalin – in a recent
poll for the greatest personality in history, a plurality of Russians placed Putin and Stalin at
the top, preceding Pushkin, the Russian poet who occupies a place safeguarded for Shakespeare in
English hearts...
They are very, very different. Their biggest difference lies in experience. Putin has led his
country for (more or less) 17 years; he learned the tricks and skills of the power game the hard
way, from being a frontman for the seven Jewish bankers who privatized Russia in Nineties, to a fully
independent autocrat comparable to the penultimate Russian Tsar Alexander III, or to Napoleon III.
He is a wise ruler, in the Confucian way, forever hiding his steel will under a velvet glove; always
modest, moderate, temperate, not given to a momentary abandon of passion. He is in full control of
himself, and the Sages tell us this is the most difficult and sublime subject of control. He is also
a responsible and reliable statesman; his word is as good as his bond: he kept the ridiculous promises
he gave to Yeltsin's family. He is also very popular with his subjects.
... ... ..
However, both leaders are severely handicapped. Trump is handicapped by the poisonous campaign
insinuating that he had been elected due to Russian interference and that he is in thrall to Russia;
at any conclusion short of a military strike the New York Times and CNN will smirk
that he surrendered the crown jewels. Putin is handicapped by the fact that Russia is weaker than
the US in every way excepting Doomsday weaponry. Russia is surrounded by US military bases; the US
military budget is ten times bigger than the Russian one. Putin has very little leeway to retreat
and he is likely to respond in force to a provocation.
... ... ...
Russia is a good friend of Iran and Syria, and it does not interfere with our friendship with
Israel. Israelis understand that for us they are a Taiwan, while the rest of the Middle East is a
China. You can do the same: make peace and friendship with Syria and Iran, while retaining friendship
of Israel. They will understand; perhaps they will whine for a while, but they will eventually find
a new modus vivendi.
Before getting into a war, define your objectives. If you will do this regarding Syria, you'll
see that you are getting into a war for the interests of the army command, for the interests of global
banking and for Israeli interests. I'd respect these interests, they are perfectly legitimate, but
they aren't your interests, they aren't interests of the American people.
Generals like wars, that is their occupation; they want more wars, a bigger part of budget, more
promotions. But a good ruler commands his generals, he does not follow their command. I have sent
home three quarters of my generals, and my popularity did not suffer. How come? I appointed a silly-looking
non-professional guy for Secretary of Defence with the brief to slim down the Army. He did it and
he got all the flak. At the end, I fired him and the Army loved me even more.
You will really prosper and you will be called the best president of all time, if you will slim
down your military. Russia has had many bases abroad, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Aden to the Arctic
North; we disbanded them all, and we did not regret it for a day. Bases are an expensive thing, and
it is better to do without them.
You know, my generals beseeched me to send troops into the Ukraine, but I didn't. We'd better
spend money on the improvement of our citizens' life. Now a few million of Ukrainians have voted
with their feet: they moved to live and work in Russia, because our way of life is better than theirs.
And bear in mind: the Ukraine had been the richest part of the USSR in the time of the Union's breakup
in 1991. Now they are quite poor. It is better to improve the economy than to fight wars.
The global bankers also like wars. I respect their wishes, but I do not intend to oblige them.
The Jews like wars, but it is not necessary to grant them every wish. The US has not a single real
interest to fight for Syria or Ukraine. Or for Estonia. I can promise you: our tanks will not roll
into the Baltic states, though they were a part and parcel of Russia for three hundred years. Just
take away the NATO bases from our vicinity. If you won't we'll have to defend ourselves.
Nixon also made a U-turn on his policy towards Russia. Instead of confrontation, he chose détente.
Putin to Trump: You can do a U-turn on the Middle East wars your country has carried
on for too long. These wars are futile. Everything you want to obtain in Syria, you can have
without shooting a single bullet, without sending a single soldier.
If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting
– ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and
Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return
to a measure of peace?
Was campaign Trump telling the truth when he said America First – no more wars? We shall find
out soon!
Peace - Art
p.s. I think that Trump's future depends on it – his base will desert him if he chooses Israel
over America.
You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve.
If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin,
you'll be disappointed.
Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above
all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced
himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have
back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it
Russia is not a great country, it even is not large.
As to being great, economically it is comparable to Spain.
Its 1600 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 70ties technology, is the only greatness, these
missiles guarantee the independence of Russia.
Russia has ONE aircraft carrier, the USA has dozens, as far as I know.
The capacity to retaliate is in this world the only guarantee to stay independent, as N Korea
makes abundantly clear these days.
Russia is not even geographically large, it seems large on most maps, the Mercator projection,
that stretches the North Pole point infinitely.
On top of that, most of N Russia, Siberia, is uninhabitable.
Global warming may change this.
I guess my first reaction is that Richard Nixon had to resign under threat of impeachment.
Not sure I want to end my presidency under similar circumstances. I'm also skeptical of the claim
that Nixon set the basis for prosperity. Wage stagnation began in the early 1970s, during his
administration.
Putin is the only leader in the world left stupid enough to take Trump seriously and have hopes
for "cooperation", when everyone else – even the likes of Duterte – are dissing on him, just waiting
it out patiently until his inevitable impeachment. Speaks volumes about the desperate situation
Putin is in.
I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of
the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography
for the USA's leading buffoon. He's a baby faced narcissistic punk who should be nowhere
near the levers of power because he'll stoop to anything for a little attention. And another thing.
This is entirely too melodramatic.:
Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'
President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety
across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the
agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework
agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be
spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.
Trump is surrounded by open and hidden enemies, by people who pray for his failure. He is
opposed by his own secret services, by the media, by his own party. His popularity isn't certain.
So true.
If Putin were to speak his mind freely to Trump, and it is not likely, as their conversation
will certainly be bugged, recorded and leaked by the NSA to the hostile media, he'd tell him:
The points you make about the current state of the world and affairs between the two countries
is mostly spot on if a bit utopian but Putin should tell him these things anyway and to hell with
the power of the evil Cabal --
"Lenin was very, very friendly to Jews; he had many Jewish colleagues, but he never allowed
them to ride upon him." No, he just let them kill millions of Russian Christians. Small detail
in history, of course.
What does the US want to have in Syria? You name it, you can have it, and without war, without
expenditure, without trouble. And I do not mean in a part of a broken and fragmented Syria
under occupation, I mean one Syria, united and complete, with its capital Damascus, and its
president Bashar al Assad. There is nothing within reason that President Assad would refuse
you and I'll second his promise.
Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain
in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all
to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart
so Israel can pick at the carcass.
So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the
wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the
people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely
dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..).
So this is the dilemma that confronts Putin, Trump, and all people of good will on the
planet.
What Putin should tell Trump is to look at what Putin managed to pull off with a nation also
absolutely under the thrall of antagonistic Rothschild minions, and how Putin managed (heroically)
to wrest power from them. Putin is trained in Judo, which involves using your op0nents own momentum
against them. That's what he did with the Jewish Oligarchs, he mollified some with kindness, and
he attacked the most dangerous ones directly, throwing them all off balance and making them wonder
what the next move might be, since the one certainty you're dealing with- is their own, honed
to absolute lasers' perfection; self-interest.
So far Trump hasn't sent troops into Syria or bombed Iran. Hasn't downed a Russian jet or done
anything so stupid that there's no turning back. We all have a shred of hope that Trump might
manage to pull off a Putin, but any advise Putin could give would be great.
However, you should not allow these wonderful people to ride upon you as upon a horse.
exactly, but you have to make it look like they are right up until the point
that Khodorkovsky / John Podesta is arrested on child abuse charges (or some other high ranking
chump) This will send shock waves though their power structure, and have them all scrambling to
protect their own arses, even as they turn on each other.
Their power is top down, yours is grass-roots up. Use that president Trump, play them as if
they're Judo opponents always coming at you, and also keep in mind their galactic egos and preternatural
self-interest, and somehow we might meet in the middle and toast the redemption and deliverance
of mankind from the devil itself.
please check out the lies being told as a pretext for a false flag chemical weapons attack
on Syria. Putin, as usual speaks the plain truth, whereas the ZUS- as usual- speaks treacherous
lies
I like Trump and he was definitely not the Deep State candidate but his knowledge is
limited which puts him in a precarious position. I can only imagine how much irradiated garbage
– masked as the "Truth" – he's getting fed daily. A "friendly" establishment veteran, with an
intricate, detailed story, can sound very authoritative to the inexperienced.
Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it
swallows him. If I were him, I'd plug everyone to a Voight-Kampff test and keep a herd of
hungry pigs in the WH's basement.
@jilles dykstra You are wrong on every point. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, not dozens.
While it's still more than Russia, it shows your ignorance. Russia is the largest country in the
world, regardless of the projection, and has people living throughout its territory, even above
the Arctic Circle. It's missiles are. It '70s tech, it has in fact continued upgrading its missile
forces, with Bulava, Yars, and Sarmat systems being their latest SLBM, road mobile ICBM, and heavy,
silk launched ICBM.
As to its economy being comparable to Spain, when was the last time Spain
- built a spaceship
- launched a nuclear submarine?
- launched a nuclear icebreaker?
- commissioned a fast beeeder reactor?
- developed a modern fighter plane?
- built a passenger jet?
Russia has done all of this in the last decade or so.
2010 Dems lost the House
2012 the Dems lost the Senate
2016 Dems lost the White House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency,
including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative
seats.
Legates et al. (2015), for example, found that only 0.3 percent of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles
on climate and related topics, published during the 21 years of 1991 to 2011, had explicitly stated
that recent warming was mostly man-made.
"In the last 20 years, we have released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the
beginning of the industrial period. Yet global mean surface temperature has remained essentially
constant for 20 years, a fact that has been acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict
it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without
warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation – i.e., that the models
were wrong. Just before the recent naturally occurring el Niño event raised global temperature,
there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all."
@1Rw Thanks for informing me on the number of aircraft carriers.
Any globe can inform you that Russia is not large, especially not in land that can be used.
On Spanish technical and military efforts, as it is already occupied by the USA it cannot defend
itself against USA occupation, as Russia does.
"... "The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said. ..."
There you go – he's received the ultimate shock; time to go home to the Pearl of Empire and spend
his dotage rambling the moors in his wellies, or watching the sea thrash the Cornish coast, or
something. Time to leave Russia, in any event; he's been studying it for 45 years, and this is
the best he can come up with, while he plainly does not understand it. Why does he spend his time
there, if everyone is a thug and a hate leader – why, in the name of God, does he spend time in
a country where people live who have never heard of George Orwell?
By the bye, if you enter the UK on a visitor's visa and then work as a journalist, you might
be looking at a
10-year ban on a subsequent re-application , you parrot-faced wazzock.
"The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance
from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they
haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk
a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said.
"... The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and sanctions is quite remarkable. ..."
"... Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them. In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare. ..."
"... For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float, lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange: ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot). Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was maintained. ..."
"... I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious benefits that we can observe in Greece. ..."
Awara blog is a product of a Russian company that offers services to foreign companies engaged
or interested in Russian markets, so this company has an interest in compiling as rosy picture
as possible.
In one place, the author adds numbers from a table presented just above, wrongly, getting a
"better result". I got an outright false statement: population of Russia is not "at all time high"
but about 9 millions lower. The period of population decline was about 20 years, and it is counterfactual
that it was compensated with 3 years of growth.
And it is hard to tell what does it mean that Russia has "most diversified economy".
But the general picture is consistent with what I have read before, e.g. data from trading
economics.com.
The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev
years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from
the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and
sanctions is quite remarkable.
Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many
crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them.
In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has
a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare.
For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems
tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float,
lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange:
ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot).
Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was
maintained.
Thus we have a combination of neoliberal elements with a very determined strategy to foster
import substitution. Import substitution is detrimental to productivity, but when the economy
is under shock, it is better to loose productivity, especially if the effect is transient, then
employment, which lead to social pathologies -- and government unpopularity. Concerning popularity,
the current generation of Russians know one collapse and the previous oil shock, so apparently
they appreciate orderly reorientation of the economy. Import substitution can easily go wrong,
Argentina is a textbook negative example, and in Venezuela it turned to be a disaster, but Russia
has a much larger internal market and non-oil resources and industries.
I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a
double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes
many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious
benefits that we can observe in Greece.
Political hacks picked up be Clinton stooges in intelligence agencies and guided by Clapper produced what was required on them...
Notable quotes:
"... Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia. ..."
"... It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed ..."
"... As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks. ..."
"... Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling. ..."
Yesterday
The Duran reported that the New York Times was finally forced to admit that the "17 US intelligence agencies" narrative is completely
made up fake news.
The "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative was the core foundation for which the entire Trump-Russia collusion/cooperation/connection
was built upon.
Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst
comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's
presidency, at the risk of war with Russia.
It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed
As a reminder as to
how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied
upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike,
who had to walk back their audit
conclusions on the hacks.
Below is a complete list of the 16 intelligence agencies in the US Intelligence Community, headed by the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who
under the Obama White House was James R. Clapper making 17 total agencies.
Why the list?
Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident"
of Russian election meddling.
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually
turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned
on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible
for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the
banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable
is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly,
Trump
could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public
entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets
and says Trump
has been out
of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management
and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard
to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such
shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to
go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers,
as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video
doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)
"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey
,
Book 11
PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this? TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice. It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida ,
Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week."
-Yours truly
So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform
to what's presently painted as true.
Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the
highly
suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of
absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the
destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point
to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that
in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have
another purpose .
Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined
not to be believed . To what
do I refer? Read on.
How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"
Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving
entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul
Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia)
until very after the fact.
See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes
to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What
Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."
Jonathan Marshall,
writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the
current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):
The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying
The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald
Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations
into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .
In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently
noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of
foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful
foreign pressure groups have enough clout to
downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system
is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence
peddling by other nations .
The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act,
failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World
War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:
Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters
as well as by the law's many loopholes -
including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect
records of those not registered under the Act."
A 2016 audit
by the inspector general of the Department of Justice
determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations
were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of
six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal
cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .
The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.
Here's Russia-savvy
Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being
investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:
When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story
is still hidden from view .
Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting
your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about
tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable,
unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions
in a crisis.
But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of
the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.
[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence
chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.
Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?
Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities
unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people
in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged
in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that
this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.
Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving
someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely
be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes
– for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.
But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting
a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption
than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.
Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than
"somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot
constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something
else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around
the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.
My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering
case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do
the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.
John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia
Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer
represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person)
firm still retained their business?
In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap
by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket
fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian
life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once
again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.
It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could
have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States
. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur
in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President
Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.
If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely
suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President
Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor,
Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian
government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign
imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone
conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being
paid by Georgia...
McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent
response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing
of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials
as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted
his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the
crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to
a Quinnipiac
University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their
last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified
to deal with Russia.
Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others
aren't so sure :
Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog
group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent
foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of
March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations.
Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined
to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .
If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register?
The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his
enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.
The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems.
Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.
An Investigation in Search of a Crime
Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole,
which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?
Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole
effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation
(how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.
Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator,
makes the same point :
In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as
they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed
two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's
role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.
In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated
a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He
also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding."
And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the
U.S. Constitution.
There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and
later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons
of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh
was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.
By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President
Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence –
that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other
Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)
The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence
regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails
pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features
of the Clinton Foundation.
Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any
formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the
Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with
Russians in the hacking.
Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the
Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller
have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible
obstruction of justice.
I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting
point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning
thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation,
another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route
to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something
more incriminating? He's still looking too.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that
how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair
to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?
Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation
start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.
Here's Parry on that (same link):
In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser,
acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for
the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .
Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking
the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted
during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their
own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser
of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.
But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with
a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps
in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the
Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.
Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the
call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since
the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and
thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.
Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around
it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President
Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.
"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"
I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his
word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation,
for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.
What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely
in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the
century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still
hidden from view."
I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime
I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server
while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.
The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid
for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office
and those they represent are sidelined.
While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors
granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations
after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever
swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.
Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect
to the "right-wing echo chamber".
And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the
phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very
worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost?
Because she could no longer deliver.
I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a
poor place to try such things.
I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public
office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will
still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.
I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with
napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.
That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.
If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:
Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background,
financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama
administration.
Obama was aware of the arrangement
Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by
definition theft.
Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is
by definition obstruction of justice.
In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive
national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents
on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal
definition of treason.
Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather
one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect
the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the
US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our
version of Gen. Pinochet.
Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA
every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software,
voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the
traditional method is to have them shot.
It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over
their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected
all over again. I'll vote for that.
As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to
as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to
do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?
You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back
and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote
about 2008.
Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye
off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.
I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have
missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow,
etc
When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits
goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President
Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"
Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.
No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though
its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating
layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to
dump Democrats.
And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens
to be speaking.
And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most
privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom
socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history
in many or most places.
Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn
on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't.
In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature
death from alcoholism.
Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques
if a Democrat wins the next election.
One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of
election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black
hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the
electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and
the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that
I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used
in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system
for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.
Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve
getting rid of.
No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue
signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!
You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic
machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not
mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to
remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.
You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how
he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do
to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)
This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to
vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign
against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too.
And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.
In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short
summary:
Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch
There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.
None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have
demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate
a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the
investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for
obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins
where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.
Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the
major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog
may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're
fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction
of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or
any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence
that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much
as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated
and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing
manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence,
espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your
average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now
if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.
*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing
the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people
who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all
the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.
If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been
leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's
actually a crime.
Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback
for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years.
Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to
uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).
Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction
more favorable to their interests!
This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff.
It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip
entirely.
> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed
by division
How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for
their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world
for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really,
there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else
> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose
So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities.
If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are
driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists
writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .
OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence
community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment
artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.
We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves
with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture,
that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung,
such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious
of here.
These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence.
That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we
don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.
Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance,
and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges
or brought or a crime is determined.
For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish
some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.
Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists
can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing
and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.
If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry
of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this
whole "Putin diddit" deal.
They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing
or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon
stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.
Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name
"Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.
> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one
of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been
following this as closely as I have.
Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before
a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed,
then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that
there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The
Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess
based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.
As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump
was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also
points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one
seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.
Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald
Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock
Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from
the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out
DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406
] and his D&O doc production.
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if
anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on
this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections
overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication
would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding
people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).
On the latest one, "
GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked
at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land
of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead.
Do better!
Some parts of US political elite is now really afraid of Russian China alliance forged by Clinton,
Bush Ii and Obama adventurism. It might be too late.
Notable quotes:
"... In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 . ..."
"... In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27 ..."
The fighting in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine has moreover proved very costly for all
sides, and rebuilding the region will prove very difficult. The specter of more intense fighting
in the years ahead has been raised in the aftermath of Kiev's "creeping offensive" into the Donbass
region since mid-December 2016. Kiev's military move was ostensibly intended to check supplies going
to the Russian-backed autonomists (who in turn have begun to expropriate Ukrainian businesses in
the Donetsk and Lugansk regions), but has nonetheless stepped deeper into the gray zone between the
two sides.
6
A collapsed Donbass region that is potentially separated from a partitioned Ukraine could soon
become a much larger and unstable version of Russian-backed Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia
combined. Such political and economic instability will continue to pollute the whole area with black
marketeering, weapons smuggling, and other forms of criminality. A failed "state" in eastern Ukraine
would not only prove very troublesome for an essentially bankrupt Kiev and the rest of the region,
but for Moscow as well-as the latter, for example, will need to deal with refugees fleeing to Russia.
Some 1.5 million people have already fled the country, with the vast majority (1.2 million) going
to the Russian Federation-which has not necessarily accepted them with open arms. Roughly 150,000
have gone to Belarus.
7 The cost of reconstruction and development in the aftermath of the conflict will
be considerable. So it should be in the common interest to bring this conflict to a close as soon
as possible.
The Question of Western Europe
A general settlement between the United States, European countries, Ukraine, and Russia is crucial
to prevent the further destabilization of eastern Europe that could, in turn, further antagonize
western Europe. Such a destabilization would deepen the divisions between pro-NATO and pro-EU sociopolitical
movements and anti-NATO and anti-EU movements on both the right and the left. In general, both left-wing
and right-wing political parties in states closest to Russia (Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic
states) tend to take a strong anti-Russian position, no matter whether they are for or against NATO
or EU membership. But left-wing and right-wing parties in both France and Germany-the two countries
that now form the core of the European Union after the UK's exit from the EU (Brexit)-tend to oppose
both EU and NATO membership.
During the ongoing process of Brexit, which could take several years to complete, it is not at
all clear where the European Union is heading. European financial instability means that a number
of states could, in the not too distant future, opt to drop out of the European Union and even out
of NATO. Here, for example, sanctions placed on Russia in the agricultural sector (coupled with a
Russian ban on European imports) have ironically been hurting the Europeans much more than the Americans.
The impact of EU and Russian sanctions, along with general impact of regional deindustrialization
and delocalization, has been pressing agricultural producers and workers, as well as small business
owners, to turn toward anti-EU anti-NATO parties on both the right and the left, particularly in
France.
9
In Search of a U.S.-Russia Policy
In apparent contrast to Trump's campaign promises to forge a general rapprochement with Moscow,
the United States and NATO are now backing Kiev's claims to eastern Ukraine and to the Crimea-while
still keeping the door open to Kiev's membership in NATO. This policy has reversed Trump's stance
during his presidential campaign, when he warned in August 2016 that U.S. efforts to regain Crimea
on behalf of Ukraine against Russia could result in World War III.
On the one hand, in arguing against Trump's proclaimed efforts to make amends with Moscow, Senator
John McCain and others have feared that U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of
ExxonMobil, could use his connections with Putin for the benefit of ExxonMobil. He might, they suggest,
try to put an end to sanctions that had been placed by Washington on the Russian energy sector since
July 2014. Eliminating sanctions would then safeguard ExxonMobil's considerable joint investment
deals and potential profitability given the size of Russian reserves in the Arctic Kara Sea, western
Siberia, Sakhalin island, and in the Black Sea that had been reached with Rosneft, the Russian government
energy company, in 2012–13.11 The concern of those like McCain who want to sustain maximum political-economic
pressure on Moscow, is that "sectoral sanctions" impacting major energy companies and banks are due
to expire in December 2017-unless extended by Congress.12
On the other hand, Trump's "America First" policies are actually ideologically opposed to ExxonMobil's
investments in Moscow. Trump's "economic nationalists" hope to return U.S. multinational corporate
investments abroad back to the United States itself-while seeking to export U.S. shale oil and gas
to Europe, for example. In effect, U.S. shale oil exporters hope to supply Poland, Ukraine, and other
European countries so that these countries will be less dependent on Russian energy; Russia would
have to lower prices to compete. Kiev, for example, is still dependent upon Moscow for about half
of its natural gas needs.13 As opposed to the argument that the United States needs to sustain positive
political and economic "linkage" with Moscow (as Henry Kissinger would argue), the United States
could soon fully antagonize Moscow by becoming a direct rival for Russia's energy export markets-in
a sector in which Moscow derives significant national revenues.14
The major dilemma lies in the fact that U.S. diplomacy under President Barack Obama did not go
far enough to "reset" the general crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. Prior to Obama's first term,
neither the United States nor the EU picked up and developed two significant proposals that might
have prevented the escalation of tensions since 2014. The first proposal was Russian president Dmitri
Medvedev's June 2008 call in Berlin for a new European security pact and the second was Turkish president
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call in Moscow for a new Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact in the aftermath
of the August 2008 Georgia-Russia War. President Obama did try to reach out to Moscow once he came
to power in January 2009, yet the fact that U.S.-Russia discussions did not address the issue of
the uncoordinated NATO and EU "double enlargement" into the Russian-defined "near abroad" could only
doom reset talks to failure.
Had the United States and EU reached out to address the issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus
raised by both Russia and NATO-member Turkey, this crisis might not have escalated. Instead, the
general attitude since the end of the Cold War was that NATO and the EU could somehow manage these
regions without the involvement of Russia-in the false assumption that Russia would do nothing to
defend its interests in its "near abroad." In effect, the general U.S. and EU attitude has been that
there was no need to create a new, jointly managed, regional peace and development community under
OSCE auspices that would incorporate the interests of Russia, Turkey, and other regional states.1
...the 2014 Minsk II accords between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia (in which the United
States is not a participant) were not designed to address the two elephants in the room: the questions
concerning NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, plus Ukrainian demands for the return of Crimea
from Russia. The focus of the Minsk discussions has been on the conflict in eastern Ukraine only-in
which a total ceasefire, Ukrainian "decentralization," and direct negotiations between Kiev and the
Donbass "autonomists" have been considered essential to success. Yet Kiev's promises of "decentralization"
have not been constitutionally implemented and the March 2017 decision of the Ukrainian Poroshenko
government to support the blockade on the Donbass region basically puts a dagger into the heart of
the Minsk II accords.16 It now appears politically impossible for the government in Kiev to recognize
the autonomist factions in the Donbass region, while Moscow has continued to supply autonomists with
weaponry.
Given the gravity of the situation, the Minsk discussions over eastern Ukraine will soon need
to be widened to include at least the United States and Turkey. This step would broaden the negotiations
to include issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, plus the Crimea. NATO-member Turkey-despite
its deep domestic instability and President Erdogan's steps toward implementing an "illiberal democracy"-would
need to play a key role. Given Turkey's central position in the Black Sea region, Ankara could potentially
help to mediate between the United States and NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. Moscow is not the
only "illiberal democracy" that Washington needs to talk to. Turkey must be included as well.17
...A general settlement with Moscow that results in Ukrainian neutrality, but allows self-defense
forces and permits Moscow to retain sovereignty over Crimea, will not necessarily result in a full
"capitulation"-even if Washington must lower its sights as to what can and cannot be negotiated in
Moscow's view. Despite renewed conflict in eastern Ukraine since mid-December 2016, President Trump
has promised to "work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace
along the (Russian-Ukrainian) border."
19 Yet Trump's promise to work for peace has not yet fully addressed the question
of the Crimea. It has, however, been alleged that Trump officials may have been secretly attempting
to make a deal with Moscow over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That deal, somewhat like the negotiated
settlement that George Kennan had sought in 1949, was leaked to the press, leading to allegations
of Trump administration collusion with Moscow.
...
Even if the Minsk II accords collapse, or if the Donbass region separates from Ukraine in a future
partition, the United States, Europeans, and Russia will need to find ways to limit the damage. The
deployment of international peacekeepers in the Donbass region under a general OSCE mandate (going
beyond OSCE observers) could help ameliorate the situation considerably, once a political settlement
can be reached. At the same time, the United States, EU, Russia, and Ukraine would need to begin
reconstruction efforts through the implementation of a regional peace and development community backed
by U.S./NATO, EU, and Russian security supports under a general OSCE mandate.
Much like Kennan's "Plan A" with respect to Germany in 1949, a new approach to Euro-Atlantic security
through engaged negotiations with Moscow would accordingly seek to establish Ukraine as a formally
neutral state with limited self-defense capabilities. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski
have likewise called for establishing Ukraine as a formally neutral country that is not a member
of NATO or the Russian-led CSTO. For his part, Kissinger has also argued that Ukraine should have
the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with the European Union.
Yet full EU membership is not a viable option either, as even the EU association accords require
that Kiev gradually adopt Common Security and Defense policies and European Defense Agency policies.
The problem is that the EU Eastern Partnership program has not yet been able to develop a formula
that can balance Russian security, defense, political-economic, financial, and energy interests with
those of the post-Soviet eastern European countries and of the EU itself. It is therefore essential
that the European Union begin to think more strategically, in cooperation with the United States,
as the two coordinate their rapprochement with Moscow.
21
NATO efforts to deploy rotating forces in the Baltic states and Poland are, as noted earlier,
being met by a buildup of Russian nuclear and conventional forces in northwest Russia and Kaliningrad,
plus major military maneuvers planned for September 2017. Despite the fact that President Putin's
proposal to restart military-to-military relations and to increase intelligence cooperation between
the United States and NATO was rejected in mid-February 2017 by Trump's new defense secretary, James
Mattis, a step-by-step normalization of U.S.-European-Russia relations should be considered.
22 This could be accomplished by means of setting up joint security exercises and
overflights in the Baltic region and Kaliningrad, and in the Black Sea region, and in joint U.S.,
EU, and Russian peacekeeping operations in Donbass and the Caucasus under a general OSCE mandate,
for example. The establishment of NATO-Russian confidence-building measures as soon as possible is
absolutely crucial if peace is to be maintained.
Once there is progress in these areas, the United States and EU could then begin to lift sanctions
on Russia, while also looking for ways to bring the United States, EU, and Russia into greater political-economic,
financial, and energy cooperation. One possibility would be a three-way trade and financial commission
between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia. Another step would be to bring Moscow back into
the G-8 discussions after Russian membership was suspended in March 2014. Both G-8 and EU-Russian-Ukrainian
discussions could likewise lead the EU to work out a political-economic association accord that better
balances Russian and Ukrainian financial, political-economic, energy, and ecological interests-after
the EU's abysmal failure to do so in 2013–14.
After sanctions on Russia are put to an end, offering Russia American and European investment,
as well as joint military and security cooperation, could help to draw Moscow away from too great
a financial and economic dependence on Beijing. It could likewise prevent the formation of a closer
Sino-Russian military alliance, somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s, but in which Russia plays a role
as a junior partner. Such a strategy must not, however, alienate China, which is the main indirect
beneficiary of U.S.-European-Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
The United States is no longer locked into an existential war with the Soviet Union, and it should
cooperate with the Russian Federation in order to sustain peace in a number of key areas: Ukraine,
Iran's nuclear program, Syria/Iraq, Islamic State, and North Korea. All these areas, among many others,
need to be addressed as soon as possible through multiple forums, including the UN Security Council,
the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, the G-8, and Contact Groups, as well as through international
conferences and bilateral U.S.-Russia, U.S.-China meetings. The United States, Europeans, Japan,
and Russia will also need to channel China's rise to major power status in such a way that
it does not harm Russian, Japanese, or American interests.
The dilemma is that it is the rise of China with its burgeoning global political-economic influence
and increasingly powerful military capabilities-combined with a close alignment with Russia as a
junior partner-that now represents the primary concern causing tremors in the United States and throughout
the world. Washington will need to fully engage in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with
both Beijing and Moscow if the global system is not to soon polarize into two contending alliance
systems: a U.S./NATO-EU-Japanese alliance of essentially democratic states vs. a Russia/CSTO-Chinese-Iranian
alliance of "illiberal democracies"-with democratic India soon forced to choose sides.
23
... ... ...
The danger is that U.S. domestic pressure to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in
more substantial negotiations with Putin could lead to an even deeper crisis. The Russian Federation
sees itself as being walled off in Europe, with its "near abroad" penetrated by the NATO EU "double
enlargement" which, Putin fears, could lead to the breakup of the Russian-led CSTO. The breakup of
the CSTO could, in turn, lead to the disaggregation of the Russian Federation itself. Certain regions
in Russia are nearly bankrupt, a fact which once again caused protests in March 2017 against corruption
and economic stagnation throughout the country. The fears of a potential breakup of the Russian Federation
(as occurred during World War I) have led Putin to seek out strong political-economic and military
ties with China in the effort to form a Eurasian Union, if not a military alliance. But unlike the
relatively peaceful disaggregation of the Soviet Union, the feared disaggregation of the Russian
Federation and concurrent civil war could lead to full scale Russian backlash.
In this regard, the Syrian crisis could provide the spark for an even greater conflagration. This
is because Moscow fears that the potential collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will
result in the loss of Russia's position in the Middle East, while permitting pan-Sunni movements
to destabilize the immediate region as well as the northern Caucasus and other predominately Muslim
regions inside the Russian Federation itself. The April 2017 Trump administration decision to engage
in unilateral cruise missile strikes as a means to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical
weaponry against its own population has been denounced by Moscow as yet another illegal unilateral
U.S. attack against a sovereign state.
In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany,
George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European
unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military
power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical
dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past."
26 .
In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU
have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash.
27
... ... ...
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 166–83.
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's
easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another
reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"
The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well
they're not doing that anymore:
"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits.
Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch
Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed
with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers
and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."
"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context,
MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers,
but not like this."
Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly.
I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course
losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:
"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since
2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox
News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier
offshoot of the Discovery Network."
I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck,
thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown
Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages
of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding
on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism,
this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.
How long you wanna let this go on? Huh? 'Cause I can keep this up for as long as you can.
Russia
extends countersanctions on the EU for another year , until December 2018. Growth for the
EU for 2018 is
forecast at around 1.4-1.5% . We'll see about that. It is forecast by the same sources to
be
1.5-1.7% for Russia , so we'll see about that, too. I sure hope Russia can survive another
year without French cheese for the kreakly. I have to say, though, that extending economic sanctions
against another country when your own prognosis says their economy will do better than yours sounds
fairly stupid.
Jon Hellevig's Awara blog has published an interesting report into the current state of Russia's
economy after two years of sanctions imposed by the West: "What Does Not Kill You Will Make You
Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years of Sanctions Warfare"
Here's a quick rundown of the report's key findings:
KEY FINDINGS:
Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected
2-3% growth
Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%
Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%
Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified,
but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient
Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize
[Central bank] reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid
Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced
Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)
Inflation falls to near 4%
Unemployment remains low at 5% level
Demographic indicators reach all-time best
Population at 146.8 million – all-time high
Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption. Retail sales down more
than 10%
In effect, the sanctions have acted as a tariffs policy Russia might have introduced to enable
key domestic industries to develop.
Mike Norman Economics blog on the Awara report has some interesting comments on Putin's economic
and financial policy. Russia's Central Bank is apparently still staffed by senior officials (like
Elvira Nabiullina) who adhere to a neoliberal economic approach and who maintain a high interest
rate regime which might be good for pensioners' incomes but bad for people establishing small
businesses and needing loan funding.
What Does Not Kill You Will Make You Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years
of Sanctions Warfare
This report is based on Awara Accounting's research on how the Russian economy managed in 2014
– 2016 to cope with the dual shocks of Western sanctions and the accompanying precipitous fall
of the oil price.
KEY FINDINGS:
Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected
2-3% growth
Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%
Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%
Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified,
but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient
Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize
CB reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid
Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced
Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)
Inflation falls to near 4%
Unemployment remains low at 5% level
Demographic indicators reach all-time best
Population at 146.8 million – all-time high
Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption.
That's excellent news. Oh – unless you work for the State Department or the Poroshenko government.
Keep those sanctions on, Washington! How's your market share doing, Europe?
I love the skewering of the idiots/propagandists who use Russia's exports profile to infer its
diversification level. Since Russia has the smallest imports per GDP of any large economy on the
planet, by definition it must be producing the goods and services that it consumes within its
own borders. The propaganda would have everyone believe that Russia is a resource exporting banana
republic that imports all of its value added goods and services.
The report also repeats the points I raise about the CBR. The CBR is acting to undermine the
Russian economy since it operates on false assumptions. In particular it drinks the propaganda
koolaid that Russia has an import economy due to lack of diversification. So the CBR thinks that
there is more inflation pressure on the economy (i.e. via import price increases due to ruble
forex drops) than there actually is. Putin is failing big time letting Nabiullina carry out her
nonsensical inflation fighting prime rate policy:
Note how the CBR prime interest rate was closer to the inflation rate before the arrival of
Nabiullina. Also note that the inflation rate shows no signs of instability after 2015 so there
is no need for the large spread between the prime rate and the inflation rate. That is, the prime
rate should be at most 4%.
There are many keyboard warriors itching for a civil war in the U.S. Some even type "bring it on" and post to popular Internet
forums and comment boards. But do they really know what they are asking for?
Matt Bracken has seen civil wars in various countries where he's served in our armed forces. He's been there, and it ain't pretty.
This is an important broadcast that anyone wanting to understand the war of ideologies taking place right now - the cultural war
we are seeing within the United States - should hear.
He's telling the truth. The left is using the language of incitement to war. It's the leaders and Hollywood scumbags MUST be
taken out and tried for treason. They will start a massive war if we don't neutralize them immediately.
As the instrumentalities of DOJ governance are rebuilt, We The People will probably have to wait until after the August recess
before new US Attorneys and new FBI Director are confirmed. Pivotal window of time - July/ August 2017
I love Matt Bracken. I never miss what he has to say. Scary stuff but reality is scary. Who can deny his knowledge and patriotism?
NOT me.He knows what he talks about and we better listen people. . I look for him here, on Infowars and Caravan to Midnight too.Thank
you Matt.I like to say..."Release the Bracken.".
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'.
the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that
the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what
if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine
yards?
so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.
"... As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and
China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write,
scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly
come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil. ..."
"... Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin
as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the west
(the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone),
a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change)
and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'. ..."
"... You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with
their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like
they read each other's papers. ..."
"... Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste
of resources that they can never match. ..."
"... For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate
Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/
..."
As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime,
and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the
time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied
Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil.
These boutique articles will say a lot of condescending things but will tie into, 'Russia never
had a liberal democratic tradition so of course they are governed by monsters like Putin'. I don't
see the same level of care given to the rest of our enemies list. I read realclearworld.com which
gives a sampling of neocon articles so I think I get a broad representation of their production.
Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin
as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge
the West (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism
(for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy
(including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'.
You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do
with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it
looks like they read each other's papers.
If you take the time to read it, the author is diabolically clever in how he twists Putin's
words. He refers to Russians who lost everything and were forced to leave (note, he leaves out
the dreaded word 'oligarch', that is reserved for those who staid).
Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless
waste of resources that they can never match.
If Moscow could tear up the rule-book of security in post-Cold War Europe by carving off
a slice of Ukraine (as it previously did in Georgia), many feared the Baltic republics – also
territory of the former Soviet Union – could be next
Tearing off a slice of Georgia, eh?
According to Michael Kofman of the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, "by 2012 Russia had
reorganised its armed forces from a Soviet mass mobilisation army into a permanent standing force,
and began improving quality across the board".
This was coupled with an intense regimen of snap checks on readiness and countless exercises,
to the extent that "by 2014 the Russian military was markedly improved compared to its lacklustre
performance in the Russia-Georgia war in 2008", he says.
Lacklustre?
So they got whupped by the US trained and equipped Georgians, did they?
All the experts I spoke to insist that the initial focus of the Russian effort has been
on Ukraine, not the Baltics. Indeed, Michael Kofman argues that the war in Ukraine imposed unexpected
requirements on Russia's military, which found itself lacking permanently stationed forces on
the country's borders, and ill-positioned for the conflict.
The war in the Ukraine?
He means the civil war there, right?
He can't mean that Russia is waging against the Ukraine, can he?
"Russian armed forces", he says, "were, and still are, in transition".
To address the prospect of war with Ukraine in the medium to long term, he says, Russia
"has spent much of the past three years repositioning units around Ukraine, building three new
divisions, rebasing several brigades, and creating an entire new combined-arms army.
So now it's "the war with Ukraine" not "in the Ukraine" is it?
So he did mean above that Russia is at war with the Ukraine?
The intent is for Russian ground forces to be in place just across the border should they
need to reinforce proxies in the Donbas, invade from several vectors, or simply deter Kiev from
thinking it could quickly retake the separatist regions by force".
So they are at war with the Ukraine, but they are not actually in the Ukraine?
I see.
And they have "proxies" waging war for them in the Ukraine, right?
Michael Kofman notes, "Russia is a Eurasian land power, bringing a lot of firepower to the
fight, but its strength shines when fighting close to home".
Well I'm so pleased you've grasped that point, Mr. Kofman!
The consensus among the experts seems to be that Ukraine was a warning bell. Russia's newfound
assertiveness is not to be confused with a desire to launch a military attack westwards.
Indeed, the immediate Russian threat may come from its information warfare and cyber campaigns
directed against the West. That's a battle that has already been joined. And it is one the West
is equally ill-prepared for.
Well that's good news, isn't it?
By the way, when did Russia last launch an attack westwards?
1944 you say?
Well I never!
What on earth for?
What? They invaded Germany ?
You"ll be telling me next that they invaded France!
Yeah, the 7 million people in the Donbas are all Russian proxies. Gotta love the NATzO propagandist
systematic omission of numbers to twist the context. In case my point is not clear, if the Donbas
population was really Ukr and loyal to Kiev, then Russia would hardly be in any position to wage
war there by proxy or directly. This is basically proof by induction; if Kiev loyal regions of
Banderastan were as easy to disrupt like the Donbas, then all of Banderastan would be in this
condition. Clearly, the narrative being peddled by the NATzO propaganda chorus is inane. The only
explanation of the situation in the Donbas that fits the facts is that it is rebelling against
Kiev.
'Russia's newfound assertiveness' is no more or less than an abandonment of hope in NATO's promises
and flannel, and a decision to stop backing up. It's nice of them to telegraph their moves so
far in advance, though, and point to the Baltics as their designated flashpoint.
More clumsy comedy from the Exceptional Nation; America announces that it believes
Syria has backed away from its diabolical plan to murder more women and children in another
Assad-signature chemical attack – thanks, of course, to the fact that the United States of America
has the Syrian airbase from which he planned to launch it under constant surveillance, and ample
punishing forces on a hair-trigger alert. Have a care, Assad, you murderer!!!
So now the absence of evidence that a chemical attack is in progress is proof that there was
such a plan. In other news, Donald Trump has had to abandon his plan to sodomize the neighbours'
dog. Thanks to my having the pooch under constant surveillance.
Published on 29 Jun 2017
People in the UK feel "frustrated and squeezed" because their pay has flatlined for a decade,
the Bank of England's chief economist has said.
Andy Haldane told BBC Newsnight that businesses had not invested enough to give the productivity
improvements necessary to push up pay.
Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate,
exclusives, and robust interviews.
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing
a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant,
then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh.
All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical
decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it
once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence
on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two
stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.
These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as
"spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their
readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.
So what did Hersh's
investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped
him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by
American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told
him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of
Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting
of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud
of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.
It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense
interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official
narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received
from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law
but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential
to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.
But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered
the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail.
In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am
Sonntag.
There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications
ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they
have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing
to do that.
Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would
be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except
for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.
His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official
narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely
they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation
directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead
Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official
one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.
The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon
and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on
his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.
The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack
at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the
White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.
And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats "
confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like
substances.
There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW
were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy
about them.
There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral
oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former
weapons inspector in Iraq, has
noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached
the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the
traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should
have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.
Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did
not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That
could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive
leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster
the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.
In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons
attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag
operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading,
the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact
opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.
But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official
claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable
is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest
news reports.
No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic
practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories.
In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the
reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.
Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the
OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in
service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian
government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV
station.
Join the
debate on Facebook More articles by:
Jonathan Cook
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's
easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another
reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"
The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well
they're not doing that anymore:
"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits.
Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch
Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed
with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers
and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."
"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context,
MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers,
but not like this."
Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly.
I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course
losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:
"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since
2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox
News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier
offshoot of the Discovery Network."
I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck,
thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown
Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages
of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding
on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism,
this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.
"... An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia: ..."
"... "In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump. ..."
"... By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?" ..."
"... Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose. ..."
The Late Show host is back in the U.S., with a week's worth of episodes from his trip-but there's
another, bigger reason for his jaunt abroad
"In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't
specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said,
and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting
closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky
tweet addressed to Donald Trump.
Though we don't know when his Russia segments will air, it seems safe to assume they'll
broadcast some time before final-round Emmy voting begins in August, or during the voting period
itself. Colbert will host this year's Emmy ceremony in September, and after a year of hard
work to overtake Jimmy Fallon in the ratings, the comedian and his team would love to walk
home with some statuary as well. It's almost certain that Late Show itself will be nominated
- and ambitious pieces filmed off-site could boost the host's chances of actually winning.
After all, it was during his week of episodes from last year's Republican National Convention
that Colbert found his groove as a network late-night host in the first place.
Colbert isn't the first late-night host to travel to Russia. Two years ago, John Oliver
made waves when he interviewed Edward Snowden there. And last fall, Samantha Bee's team tracked
down some Russian trolls for fascinating interviews. Outside the late-night sphere, Megyn Kelly
also made the journey earlier this month for her dull interview with Vladimir Putin. Colbert's
trip could carry even more weight than those of his late-night contemporaries simply because
of timing - Oliver went before the presidential campaign had ramped up, and Bee went before
Trump's victory.
By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that
its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all,
what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award
that Trump never managed to win himself?"
Here you go! Russia is a "commodity" on the Media market. You know – this "internationally
isolated" (c) "gas station masquerading as a country" (c) that "produces nothing" (c). Here how
it works. Talking heads create the illusion of "oppressive" and "forbidden" Russia, that is oh
so dangerous to visit. And then they "brave" to visit it – woo-hoo! Surely, if they are so brave,
that they MIRACLOUSLY survived numerous assassination attempts (remember, kids – billions of journos
are killed in Russia daily!) then everything they say must be true .
Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their
money for a new dose.
On the previous page yalensis made a very important observation – Colbert, Oliver, Stewart
etc. are court jesters of the so-called Western liberal democracy. In ages past, court
jesters were (wait for it!) present at this or that feudal lord's court but they were not
of the court themselves. They were anti-court, and they looked the part: instead of a crown
they wore a cap with bells, instead of regal scepter and orb – a stick with pig's bladder,
instead of rich vestment and mantle – an eyegouging ridiculous attire. No one could possibly
mistake them for "normal" people.
That was the point. They were tolerated because they were not perceived as normal.
Modern day court jesters don't stand out. They wear suits, and ties and expensive shoes
– just like the members of elite they diss/serve under. They look normal and thus are perceived
as normal. Which is wrong and deceitful. People consider them "journalists" and "reporters"
– which they are not. The fool's role is to embellish, to tell parables and to exaggerate –
and, yes, to lie.
They are fools, all right. But how would you call the people, their enormous audience, who
listen to fools and believe their every single word?
The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister
compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through
during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route
radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such
a relatively small object as a Buk missile.
"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile",
the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting
on the latest Dutch claims.
Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17
"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not
there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States
General).
The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars
had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree
sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas
could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.
As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point
specified by the JIT in 10 seconds. And radar does not just illuminate targets, it records having
received an echo return from bouncing off something, so that as the operator you see a dot – which
they referred to as a tick – which is the accumulation of 'hits' by the radar, so that you can
distinguish a target from the innumerable random dots which result from the characteristic known
as 'scatter'. Most radars have a feature known as history recording or target trails, in which
you begin to see the contacts progress by the trail of 'hits' it leaves behind.
In any case, it is significant that the Dutch investigation team did not bother to get a radar
expert to summarize its findings in that area, but a political appointee with no experience in
that field.
Doesn't the BUK missile delivery system itself also rely on radar to locate and target any objects?
So had there been a team or unit of soldiers operating such a system in the area where the Dutch
claim they were in, then wouldn't Russian military have been able to work out the radar frequencies
the group was using and contact it?
Well, the Russians would hardly contact this group, would they? Not knowing the SBU and their
crack communications-intercept teams were listening and ready to record another admission of Russian
culpability. Over several days of observations it would be possible to identify unique Buk systems
by their operating frequencies, yes. Typically they are identified as operating in the band of
frequencies which identify them as a Buk system, and that's good enough, but it is possible to
identify one among others if you have the opportunity to match its frequencies to observation
and watch it move around, although if there are several systems, their operating frequencies will
all be close.
But the Dutch story is that this system was smuggled in just long enough to take the shot and
then quickly smuggled out again, and that it was only one launcher and not a complete system.
The radar on the launcher is highly directional, and electronic warfare systems might not pick
it up unless they were along its line of sight, whereas the emitter which is usually correlated
to the Buk (by electronic intercept) is the search radar, which is its own separate vehicle.
Russian electronic warfare did report several Buk systems active in the area – all Ukrainian,
presumably, since the Ukrainian command insisted the rebels did not have any – the day prior to
the disaster. That statement (that the rebels did not have any Buks that were captured from the
Ukrainian Army) and other realities are what force the crazy story whereby Russia supposedly smuggled
in a partial system, took the shot and ran for it. It's the only one they can make fit.
The Dutch are peddling one of the most inane tinfoil hat theories ever. If Russia smuggled in
that single component for an in and out atrocity, then why the FCUK didn't they just help the
Donbas "terrorists' fix up the system that fell into their hands that fits the same description
(i.e. one lacking a separate radar unit). Hiding a few Buk missiles in the back of a truck is
vastly easier than lugging around a whole mobile unit on a flatbed.
This is shit is the same "feed the retards some 'plausible' story" ploy as the Polonium murder
of Litvinenko. Smearing Polonium on a Moscow circuit plane is the ultimate in inanity. Let's use
an exotic murder weapon that is messy and hard to use and make sure to trace it back to ourselves.
For fuck's sake, using a hand gun with a silencer is orders of magnitude easier and less traceable
since throwing the gun in the river actually works and it will have negligible chance of being
found by the cops unless they have a witness.
Of course! – I hadn't thought the SBU would be monitoring communications between the rebels in
Donetsk and any outside supporters. My oversight. I had in mind a hypothetical situation where
the Russian military detects such a "unit", observes its activities to determine their intended
objective and then warns the "unit" that it is under surveillance.
As I've pointed out before, any emitter with such a slow scan rate as that would be useless for
air traffic control. There are radars with huge antennas and very slow scan rates, but they are
high-power emitters used for Early Warning, not for controlling fast-moving aircraft and deconflicting
a busy air picture at various altitudes. But the Dutch 'investigators' who are helping Ukraine
wash itself out of the picture hope that you are stupid.
As any fule kno, the way to get a good grade in higher education is to buy it.
Or so it seems in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where
a recent survey and study found that 48% of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better
grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted
to cheating on exams or tests.
Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews reveals a pro-American Putin disdained by Washington
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on
June 28, 2017 June 27, 2017 Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump kept repeating
a line that stuck in the Establishment's craw like a cherry pit stuck under a denture: "
Wouldn't it be nice if we could
get along with Russia? " Russia and specifically Russian President Vladimir Putin are consistently
portrayed in the US media as implacable enemies of the US and the West: it's simply taken as the
given. And yet, the biggest revelation in Oliver Stone's recent four-part series of extensive interviews
with Putin is how consistently and desperately Putin has tried to get along with us. In the second
interview, Stone points out that, after the 9/11 attacks, Putin was "one of the first to call [George
W. Bush] and offer condolences, and Putin elaborates that more than a phone call was involved:
"Yes, we had planned military exercises of our new strategic forces for the next day. And I
canceled those exercises and I wanted the president of the United States to know that. Certainly
I understood that heads of state and governments in such a situation need moral support.. And we
wanted to demonstrate this to President Bush."
Contrast this with the behavior of the US government when Russian cities came under attack from
Chechen Islamic terrorists in the 2010 bombing of the Moscow Metro system. While there was a pro
forma denunciation of the attack, the American propaganda network, "Radio Free Europe," ran a piece
entitled "
In Wake of Metro Bombings, Putin's War On Terror Is Under Fire ." The gist of the article is
that Putin, not the terrorists, was responsible for the attacks. There is even a quote from Boris
Nemtsov, the leader of a tiny opposition movement whose death two years ago was naturally blamed
on Putin, implying that the whole thing was a "false flag" operation carried out by the authorities:
"'This happened right under the security services' noses,' Nemtsov said, noting that the attack
at the Lubyanka metro station took place in close proximity to the headquarters of the Federal Security
Service .
"Nemtsov adds that many disturbing questions remain about the attacks.
"'Nobody can explain how two female suicide bombers got to the center of Moscow. Nobody can
answer how they got the explosives. Nobody can answer what the police and security services were
doing to prevent this.'"
Radio Free Europe also referred to the 1999 apartment bombings that took place in Moscow and other
major cities as "mysterious," bolstering the
"truther" views of fringe Russian oppositionists – including exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky
– that the Russian intelligence services were behind the attacks. According to the Russian "truthers,"
it was all a plot to hand total power to Putin.
Yet here is Putin telling Stone that allowing the US military access to Russian bases in Tajikistan
in order to fight the Taliban was right and necessary because "We believe that this cooperation is
in our national interest." This says something important about Putin, and his conception of how Russia's
foreign policy should be run: he never allows emotions to get in the way of pursuing what he regards
as his country's interests, objectively defined. And there are plenty of emotional reasons for him
to obstruct the US at every turn, for as the interview continues Stone brings up Washington's "regime-change"
operations aimed at the Kremlin, specifically CIA chief Bill Casey's plan to utilize Islamic radicals
against the Russians after the fall of Afghanistan. Putin's reply is revealing:
"You see, the thing is, these ideas are still alive. And when those problems in the Caucasus
and Chechnya emerged, unfortunately the Americans support these processes . Even though we counted
on American support. We assumed that the Cold War was over but instead we witnessed the American
intelligence services support terrorists. And even when we confirmed that, when we demonstrated that
Al Qaeda fighters were fighting in the Caucasus, we still saw the intelligence services of the United
States continue to support these fighters."
Longtime readers of Antiwar.com, and of this column, may recall
this
piece exposing the US-based support network enjoyed by the Caucasus "rebels" via the "American
Committee for Peace in Chechnya," and the myriad connections of Metro bomber Rezvan Chitigov, a US
resident with a green card , to Al Qaeda's terrorist activities in the region.
US government support to the Chechen terrorists wasn't just propagandistic: as Putin points out,
they provided technical and logistical support, moving them around the battlefield. When Putin met
with George W. Bush, he brought this up, and the then President said "I'll sort this out."
He never did. Instead, the CIA actually sent a letter to their Russian counterparts in response
to Putin's concerns, which said, in summary: "We support all the political forces, including the
opposition forces, and we're going to continue to do that." So in public, the Bush administration
was bloviating about the centrality of the "war on terrorism," while they were covertly canoodling
with Al Qaeda and allied forces in the Caucasus in a relentless campaign against Russia.
And the same thing is happening in Syria today, with US support to Islamist "rebels" intent on
overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. "It's a systemic mistake," says Putin, "which is repeated
always. This is the same thing which happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And right now it's happening
in the Middle East."
Stone presses the Russian leader for evidence of Western support to Chechen terrorists, and Putin's
reply is that it was no secret, which it certainly was not. The British government
granted asylum
to Akhmed Zakayev, former "Prime Minister" of the breakaway Islamist "Chechen Republic of Icheria"
– whose forces carried out the bloody Beslan attacks on Russian schoolchildren. The National Endowment
for Democracy, the European Union, and the Norwegian government
funded the "Russia-Chechen Friendship Society," which published Chechen separatist propaganda.
When the Kremlin moved to shut this operation down, the Western media pointed to it as evidence of
Putin's "authoritarianism," and yet imagine if the Russians started funding, say, a Texas secessionist
movement in the US. American lawmakers and officials can't even meet with the Russian ambassador
without being accused of "treason"! Our National Endowment for Democracy has honored the former "Foreign
Minister" of the Chechen Isalmic "republic," Ilyas Akhmadov, with a fellowship, and he
regularly participates in
NED events. Wanted
on terrorism charges in Russia, he was
granted asylum
by the Bush administration.
Putin's complaints about US policy are centered on three issues:
Washington's "regime change" campaign against the Kremlin. The US decision to unilaterally abrogate
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The eastward expansion of NATO.
These are all interconnected, but it's worth noting where and when they originated: during the
presidency of George W. Bush – when the neoconservatives were in the drivers' seat. And these policies
continued throughout the Obama years, with the Democrats now signing on to the Hate-on-Russia campaign
and escalating it beyond anything yet seen. As Putin put it to Stone, "And there's one curious thing
– the presidents of your country change, but the policy doesn't change – I mean on principled issues."
That's because the national security bureaucracy – what conservatives these days are referring to
as the "Deep State" (
without crediting
Noam Chomsky!) – and not our elected officials are the ones really in charge.
While there's some controversy surrounding the alleged promise made to the Russians that NATO
would not expand if the Kremlin agreed to allow German reunification, the fact that the agreement
was verbal and not enshrined on paper doesn't obviate its significance. And there is plenty of
evidence to show that there was indeed such an agreement. As Joshua Shifrinson pointed out in
the Los Angeles Times :
"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of
meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for
cooperation on Germany, US could make "iron-clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand 'one inch
eastward.' Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to reunification talks."
Yet NATO pushed eastward without interruption during the Bush years, and this process continued
under his successors, until today, with Trump in the White House, tiny Montenegro is
now hailed as the latest entrant into the club – a country whose borders are ill-defined, and
whose combative internal politics are a constant struggle between pro-Russian and pro-Western forces.
Against whom, Putin asks, is NATO protecting its members from? Who is the "enemy"? Clearly the answer
is Russia, as the alliance expands to the very gates of Moscow and Western forces engage in
provocative "exercises," simulating a NATO invasion of Russian territory.
The ABM Treaty, once the cornerstone of détente, was
nullified by the United States – but why? The official explanation – at least, the one given
to Putin – was that the US had to build antimissile defenses against the alleged "threat" from Iran.
Aside from the credibility of the contention that the Iranians were getting ready to strike Warsaw
or Prague, the Iran deal, says Putin, makes this rationalization obsolete. Yet still the antimissile
shield is being expanded, and the Russians are obliged to take countermeasures, lest the US gain
a first strike capability.
As I pointed out in the first installment of this review, it's fascinating to see the contrast
between Stone, a committed man of the left, and Putin, who's closer to being a paleoconservative
than anything else. In reviewing the history of Russo-American relations since 1917, Stone avers
that "The United States and the allies did nothing to help the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union
was warning the world about the fascist threat in Spain and throughout Europe." He goes on to echo
Stalin's complaint that the Western allies weren't doing enough to help the Soviets, who were taking
the brunt of Germany's assault. Left out of his historical account is the fact that the Soviets
were allied with
Hitler's Germany, that the Soviets and the Germans jointly invaded and divided up Poland, and that
this was the genesis of the Second World War. Just a minor oversight!
Juxtapose Stone's uncritical view of Soviet foreign policy with Putin's perspective: the Russian
leader considers the Warsaw Pact a mistake. Citing the Soviet withdrawal from Austria, a move which
he see as creating an "asset," and the agreement over the neutral status of Finland, Putin contends
that Russia – if it had followed this course – would've been able to deal with the West "on a civilized
basis. We would have been able to cooperate with them. We wouldn't have had to spend enormous resources
to support their inefficient economies." Yes, Putin realizes what American policymakers don't see:
that empires are a burden, not an asset.
The creation of the Warsaw Pact gave the West an "excuse," as Putin puts it, "to create NATO and
launch a Cold War." And he makes a very salient point about how and why US foreign policy went off
on a dangerous tangent in the post-Soviet era:
"I think that when the United States felt they were at the forefront of the so-called civilized
world and when the Soviet Union collapsed, , they were under the illusion that the United States
was capable of everything and they could act with impunity. And that's always a trap, because in
this situation, a person and a country begins to commit mistakes. There is no need to analyze the
situation. No need to think about the consequences. No need to economize. And the country becomes
inefficient and one mistake follows another. And I think that's the trap the United States has found
itself in."
He takes his argument further, positing that the whole society becomes infected with this unrealistic
hubris, and it becomes politically necessary for the leadership to follow this irrational course
to the very end.
Stone is excited by this kind of talk: he goes into a riff about how what he'd like to talk about
in their next interview "is this pursuit of world domination" by the US. At which point, Putin draws
back:
"Well, let's agree on something. I know how critical you are of the United States' policies.
Please do not try to drag me into anti-Americanism."
I had to laugh when I heard that. It underscores Putin's view of the US, and the whole spirit
of these interviews: while Putin believes that the present foreign policy of US leaders is misguided,
he holds out hope that this is not a permanent condition. While Stone has this one-dimensional view
of the US as the Global Villain – as if this is an inherent quality of American society, perhaps
due to the nature of American capitalism – Putin sees the consequences of what calls "the logic of
imperialism" as an aberration.
It's a view with which I very much concur: American imperialism is an aberration, a radical
deviation from the course set for us by the Founders of this country, and completely out of character
for the overwhelming majority of the American people, who just want to live in peace.
In the first installment of this series, I said that there is plenty of real news buried in these
interviews, and certainly Putin's revelation that the Russians rejected Edward Snowden's first contacts
with the Russians, which occurred when he was in China, qualifies. Apparently a request for asylum
was made, either by Snowden or his representatives, "but I said we wanted nothing to do with that,"
says Putin. The Russians didn't want to aggravate their already difficult relations with the US government.
And this rejection was probably due in part to the fact that "Snowden didn't want to give us any
information, and he has to be credited with that," Putin continues. "But when it turned out we were
not willing to do that yet, not ready, he just disappeared."
So how did Snowden wind up in Russia? As my readers may recall, he arrived at a Russian airport
en route probably to Cuba or Ecuador. However, the US mobilized its European sock-puppets and blocked
the route, and so he stayed in the Russian airport for weeks. He was eventually granted temporary
asylum because the United States had been consistently refusing to sign an extradition treaty with
Russia, despite the initiative undertaken by Moscow at the time. "And according to our law," says
Putin, "Snowden didn't violate any law – he didn't commit any crime." And so with the US pointedly
refusing to extradite Russians accused of crimes – such as terrorism – to Russia, "it was absolutely
impossible for us to unilaterally extradite Snowden as the US was asking us to do."
Talk about blowback!
There's more news: Stone asks about the extent of Russian spying on the US, and Putin's response
is quite revealing, albeit not in the way Stone or anyone else expected:
"Yes, sure, I don't have anything against their spying on us. But let me tell you something
quite interesting. After radical changes – political changes – took place in Russia, we thought that
we were surrounded by allies and no one else. And we also thought the United States was our ally.
And this former president of the KGB, of the special services of Russia, all of a sudden he transferred
to our American partners, our American friends, the old system of eavesdropping devices on the US
Embassy in Moscow. And he did it unilaterally. Just all of a sudden, on a whim – as a token of trust
symbolizing the transition to a new level."
There was, however, no reciprocal move from the Americans: "We never witnessed any step from the
United States toward us."
Of course not.
Editorial note : This is the second of a multi-part series reviewing Oliver Stone's
"The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here . You can get the book version of Stone's work
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
Oliver Stone's series of interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin – conducted between July
2015 and February 2017 – has garnered a lot of attention, albeit in most cases not for the right
reasons. In a much-noted appearance
of Stephen Colbert's comedy show, the liberal host attacked Stone for not confronting the Russian
leader for his alleged crimes – which simply shows that Colbert didn't bother seeing the interviews,
because Stone most certainly did question Putin about this and other related matters. A
review in Salon follows a similar pattern: the reviewer apparently did view at least some parts
of the interviews, but predictably focused on the most superficial material: Putin loves Judo, he's
not a feminist, and won't be marching in any Gay Pride events. Shocking!
In the present atmosphere of Russophobic hysteria, no honest account of what is happening in Russia
or what Putin is really all about is likely to be taken at face value. What's astonishing, however,
is that this four-part documentary was even made at all– and shown on Showtime, where it is currently
playing. Less surprising is the fact that the interviews contain several news-making revelations
that the "mainstream" media has so far largely ignored.
It gets interesting right from the beginning when Stone delves into Putin's early career. As a
KGB officer stationed in East Germany, then the German Democratic Republic, he describes the GDR
as entirely lacking the "spirit of innovation," a "society [that] was frozen in the 1950s." Hardly
what one would expect from the caricature of a Soviet apparatchik Western profiles of Putin routinely
portray. And also right from the beginning there is a tension between Stone, with his often archetypal
liberal-left views, and Putin, whose perspective – if it has any American equivalent – might be called
paleoconservative.
When Stone tries to identify Putin with Mikhail Gobachev, the Soviet liberal-reformist leader
– "he has a resemblance to you in that he came up through that system. Very humble beginnings" –
Putin rejects this outright with laconic disdain: "We all have something in common because we're
human beings." Gorby, a favorite of American liberals, is seen by Putin as someone who "didn't know
what [he] wanted or know how to achieve what was required."
Putin is routinely described by Western journalists as someone who wants to restore the old Soviet
system, or at least restore the empire that extended over the countries of the Warsaw Pact, but what
isn't recognized is that he opposed the failed coup that sought a Soviet restoration: he resigned
from his KGB office when the coup plotters briefly took over. And so Stone asks him, "But in your
mind, did you still believe in communism? Did you believe in the system?" Putin answers: "No, certainly
not. But at the beginning I believed it and I wanted to implement it." So when did he change? "You
know, regrettably, my views are not changed when I'm exposed to new ideas, but only when I'm exposed
to new circumstances." Here is Putin the pragmatist, the man of action, who wants results and not
theories: "The political system was stagnating," he says, "it was frozen, it was not capable of any
development." Just like East Germany, which he had recently come from. And therefore he concluded
that "the monopoly of one political force, of one party, is pernicious to the country."
Still, Stone insists that "these are Gorbachev's ideas, so you were influenced by Gorbachev."
Yet Putin contradicts him: "These are not ideas of Gorbachev," who was merely trying to reform a
system that was rotten at its very core: "The problem is this, this system was not efficient at its
roots. And how can you radically change the system while preserving the country? That's something
no one back then knew-including Gorbachev. And they pushed the country towards collapse."
It was the country versus the system – the latter was destroying the former. So how to preserve
the Russian nation in the midst of so much turmoil? That was the problem that Russia faced as the
Communist colossus was falling, and it is still the conundrum at the heart of Putin's concerns. Putin
greatly resents Gorbachev because the would-be Soviet reformer was pushing the system toward its
ultimate demolition without regard for the consequences.
And why was this a disastrous course in Putin's view? Not because the old Communist dream was
exposed as a nightmare, but due to the fact that the nation – as opposed to the system – was dismembered.
"To start with," says Putin, "the most important thing is that after the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, 25 million Russians – in the blink of an eye – found themselves abroad. In another country."
Imagine waking up one morning and finding that you're not a citizen of the United States, but
instead come under the control of some foreign entity that never existed in your lifetime. That's
what happened in the old Soviet Union. And the consequences of that historic implosion are still
reverberating some thirty years later.
A key part of the mythology surrounding Putin is that he's a power-mad dictator, the reincarnation
of Stalin, and yet the facts – little known, of course, and not reported in the Western media – give
us quite a different perspective. For example, I've never heard a single news story about Putin's
career report the fact that he initially refused President Boris Yeltsin's first offer to appoint
him Prime Minister. He didn't trust Yeltsin, with good reason, and to underscore the dangers inherent
in the office at that point he says: "And there was only one thing I was thinking about back then:
Where to hide my children?"
This is not someone who wants power for its own sake. Indeed, Putin comes across as a modest man,
driven by a sense of patriotic duty rather than lust for power, prestige, or pelf. He looks askance
at praise, such as when Stone says: "You're credited with doing many fine things in your first term.
Privatization was stopped. You built up industries a real son of Russia – you should be proud.
You raised the GDP," etc. etc. A Stalin type would simply have accepted this adulation, and yet Putin
disputed Stone's key point:
"Well, it's not exactly like that. I didn't stop privatization. I just wanted to make it more
equitable, more fair. We put an end to some schemes – manipulation schemes – which led to the creation
of oligarchs. These schemes that allowed some people to become billionaires in the blink of an eye."
Here, again, we see the tension between Stone's left-wing economic views, and Putin's perspective,
a theme played out in the entire course of these interviews: Putin continually insists that he is
for private property, and that the "privatization" schemes he denounces were all due to the oligarchs'
connections to the state apparatus, which handed them control of entire industries for pennies on
the dollar. The oligarchs were made possible by government control of industry and a rigged system,
the exact opposite of a market economy. Putin clearly understands this when, later in the interview,
he says:
"Do you know who was not happy with the new laws [which opened up the bidding process for state-owned
industries]? Those who were not true businessmen. Those who earned their millions or billions not
thanks to their entrepreneurial talents, but thanks to their ability to force good relationships
with the government – those people were not happy."
I said there was some real news buried in these interviews, which has gone unreported for the
most part in Western media, and toward the end of the first interview there's a real shocker when
Stone says:
"Five assassination attempts, I'm told. Not as much as Castro whom I interviewed – I think
he must have had 50 – but there's a legitimate five that I've heard about."
Putin doesn't deny it. Instead, he talks about his discussion with Fidel Castro on the subject,
who told him "Do you know why I'm still alive? Because I was always the one to deal with my security
personally." However, Putin doesn't follow Castro's example. Apparently he trusts his security people:
"I do my job and the security people do theirs." What's interesting is that the conversation continues
along these lines, in the context of attempts on Castro's life. Stone is surprised that Putin didn't
take Castro's advice on the security question, saying "Because always the first mode of assassination,
from when the United States went after Castro, you try to get inside the security of the president
to perform assassination." "Yes," replies Putin, "I know that. Do you know what they say among the
Russian people? They say that those who are destined to be hanged are not going to drown."
While I'm not prepared to interpret this Russian proverb, or its relevance to what is an astounding
revelation – five assassination attempts! – Putin's willingness to contradict or correct Stone,
and the absence of any objection to this line of questioning on his part, looks very much like an
endorsement of Stone's contention. To my knowledge, CBS – which owns Showtime - is the only major
media outlet in this country (aside from a
brief mention in Newsweek ) that
reported it , and then only perfunctorily.
So who tried to kill Putin? From the context of this interview, the clear implication is that
it was the US, or its agents, but we don't know that for a fact. Indeed, the whole subject is something
Putin – while he doesn't deny it – doesn't want to pursue to the end. This is, I think, in large
part because – and this will astonish you – he's very pro-American. This comes out in the beginning
of the second interview, the next day [July 3, 2015], when, in the midst of a discussion about US
intervention in Iraq in 1991, and Gorbachev's withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, a
clearly frustrated Stone – who is not getting the expected answers from Putin – explodes:
"Let's lay it on the line here. I mean, I was in the Vietnam War,. We sent 500,000 troops
to Vietnam. That was outrageous and condemned by the whole world. After the détente with Gorbachev,
Reagan and the United States put 500,000 troops into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."
To this, Putin raises his eyebrows - ever so slightly – and says:
"I know that you are very critical of the American government in many dimensions. I do not
always share your point of view. Despite the fact that, with regards to the American leadership,
we do not always have the relationship we would like to have with them. Sometimes decisions have
to be taken which are not entirely approved of in some parts of society."
After some confusion about what they're talking about – Putin is referring to the 1991 invasion
of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush, not the invasion and subsequent occupation by his son – Putin
says "President Bush was quite right to do what he did, he was cautious. He responded to aggression
and then stopped when the time was right." The point here is not that Stone is wrong, but that the
caricature of Putin as reflexively opposed to everything the United States does is inaccurate. Another
indication of where Putin is really coming from is his habit – throughout the entire series of interviews
– of referring to the US government as "our partners." This really sticks in Stone's craw, until
he finally says:
"So stop referring to them as partners – 'our partners' – you've said that too much. They're
being euphemistic. They're no longer partners.
" Putin : But dialogue has to be pursued further."
The Russian President maintains this tone throughout. It's almost wistful: speaking of "our partner,"
Putin exudes the air of a disappointed lover, one baffled by the constant rebuffs, the refusals,
the outright disdain coming from the object of his affections. He constantly refers to the mutuality
of interests that exists, the common goal of fighting Islamic terrorism, and he simply cannot believe
that Washington continues to deny this. He just cannot understand it: why, we could be so happy
together!
Indeed, Putin chides Stone more than once for his "anti-Americanism" – a charge Stone comes back
to late in the interviews, and heatedly denies – and this underscores my point: here is someone who
is not the enemy he is portrayed as being. Despite the coordinated campaign demonizing him in Western
circles, despite the relentless eastward advance of NATO, despite the new cold war being waged at
home and abroad by American politicians, Putin is stubbornly pro-American. And that is the most surprising
aspect of these interviews, one I'll get into in more depth later as I continue this series.
Editorial note : This is the first part of a multi-part series on Oliver Stone's
"The Putin Interviews." Future installments will continue throughout the week. Read the entire interviews,
including unaired content,
by buying the book.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
by Justin Raimondo Posted
on June
30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media,
and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling,
one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary
Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.
The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation:
"Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama,
and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin:
Well, almost nothing."
Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:
"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the
United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."
This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's
questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name
doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:
"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say
is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there
are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one
gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."
So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because
the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And
so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the
election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question
as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect
of getting along with Russia so problematic.
Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference,
I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters
"should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have
tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more
perceptive progressives are
saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."
This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted
what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:
"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president
and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president
to make good on the promises he gave to the people."
To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that
has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:
Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the
White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American
partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of "
libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that
the Ukraine snipers who shot
at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the
end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available
to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a
number of other places." Putin has evidence of
Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took
out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported
to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier.
And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So
trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely
evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that
route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone
and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming
from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According
to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the
Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their
alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US
Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."
And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden
revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting
that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way.
Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that
this is indeed the case .
There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the
instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points
the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that
it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies
of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies
it: "I'm a capitalist!"
There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove,"
the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's
face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy
in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question
very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral
abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:
"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the
first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."
To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.
Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences
for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:
"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone.
I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on
to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about
to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace
and consciousness to the world."
Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is
that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being
a "
useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals
who used to be labeled as such.
And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to
realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely
described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing
this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it
for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man
who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and
Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.
What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both
countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which
Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything
to stop it. But why?
There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility
between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues.
Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason.
Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class,
and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.
Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against
not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a
separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even
more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions
such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.
This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict
that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national
sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts
the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.
In his famous essay, " The End of History
," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as
the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its
power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in
that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they
are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country
and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the
ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle
to the globalist project.
That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism"
of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism.
Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would
demonize him and his country for this very reason.
As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture
a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous
State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.
Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver
Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is
here , and the second part is
here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film –
here .
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going
here . But please note that my tweets
are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media
™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular
article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers
in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege.
Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho
in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable
person, judging by his last name.
Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve
as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you
can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.
Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:
"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates
the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators
belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists).
The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a
statement
that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.
The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14
beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the
Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted
art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events,
a social center, media organizations,
court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World
War II.
According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only
the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity.
It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one
thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported
separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something
they've
done before and continue to threaten to do.
To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."
Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands
by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims
no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera
and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said
roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate
in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:
"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and
under house arrest after killing two police officers -
to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists
demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.
[ ]
[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right
organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion,
a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was
integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have
accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least
one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence
is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.
Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU)
paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member
of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian
fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself
used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern
Ukraine, and as interior minister
formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the
"White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."
[ ]
In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police
claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building
in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to
cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president
Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."
"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."
True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become
President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia,
military
Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come
and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election
have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been
drawn in Ukraine.
That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party
under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing
you would see in a banana republic.
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't
quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic
group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."
Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine
– but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people
are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the
dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens
to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of
those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream
"FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge
seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old
hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation
which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving
its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.
The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if
Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.
Reply
"... "Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," ..."
"... "will probably have to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," ..."
"... "to some sort of a collapse." ..."
"... "This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be harmful," ..."
"... "We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third countries," ..."
"... The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more US Senate adopts amendment on more sanctions against Russia ..."
New sanctions imposed on Russia by the US will certainly make relations between the countries
worse, but will hardly leave Russia hamstrung, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.
"Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever
decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," the president
told Vesti on a Saturday program.
Putin was referring to the US Senate's approval of an amendment to an anti-Iran bill that would
prevent US President Donald Trump from lifting current anti-Russian sanctions without congressional
authorization and also impose new broad ones.
If Washington does implement the new sanctions, the Russian government "will probably have
to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," Putin said, adding that this will
in no way lead the country "to some sort of a collapse."
"This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be
harmful," he added.
Earlier, several European countries, including Germany, France and Austria, voiced concern over the
newly proposed sanctions, which could potentially affect European companies working with Russia on
joint energy projects, such as the NordStream 2 gas pipeline.
"We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third
countries," German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told the media
on Friday.
The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure,
which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would
compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give
American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more
US Senate adopts
amendment on more sanctions against Russia
"... Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings. ..."
"... "It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims. ..."
Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite
the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing
approached the plane from the east, despite official findings.
Last week, the Dutch government published a series of replies by Security and Justice Minister
Stef Blok, who explained to a parliamentary commission why radar data provided by Russia did not
show any objects approaching the MH17 flight, including a Buk missile.
The radar, according to Blok, could simply miss a missile. The minister compared the radar
to a lighthouse, claiming that a missile could slip through during its "turn" and therefore leave
no trace on Russia's Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar could not
register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.
"It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian
aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch
claims.
It sneaked in while the radar antenna was looking the other way???????
The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister
compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through
during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route
radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such
a relatively small object as a Buk missile.
"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile",
the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting
on the latest Dutch claims.
Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17
"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not
there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States
General).
The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars
had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree
sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas
could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.
"... The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the government-owned bank established in London in 1991 to finance market boosting projects in the former Soviet Union, has been secretly aiding UK and US intelligence services in espionage targeted at Russia. The US is a 10% shareholder in the bank, the UK holds an 8.7% stake; Russia, 4%. ..."
"... Treason against Russia was one crime Ryjenko refused to undertake, the Old Bailey testimony reveals. Also revealed, and for the first time, is EBRD's role in operating the scheme of lures and inducements MI5 proposed for Ryjenko, and other Russian nationals at the bank. "Honey traps," comments a London banking veteran, "are generally illegal. ..."
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the government-owned bank established
in London in 1991 to finance market boosting projects in the former Soviet Union, has been secretly
aiding UK and US intelligence services in espionage targeted at Russia. The US is a 10% shareholder
in the bank, the UK holds an 8.7% stake; Russia, 4%.
The disclosure appears in the records of a trial this month at the Central Criminal Court in
London of Andrei Ryjenko (Рыженко, usually Anglicized as Ryzhenko), a senior banker at the EBRD
who is a dual Russian-British citizen. Early in June, Ryjenko was convicted of taking and then
laundering $3.5 million in concealed bribes for helping applications to the EBRD for loans and
equity investments from two Russian oil and gas companies win approval for a total of $275 million.
MI5, according to testimony in open court, offered Ryjenko the opportunity to keep his money and
avoid prosecution if he agreed to spy for the British against Russian foreign intelligence service
(SVR) agents who, MI5 told Ryjenko, were under cover in London. Ryjenko refused for several months.
He was then arrested and subsequently tried. On June 20, Ryjenko was sentenced to six years in
jail.
Treason against Russia was one crime Ryjenko refused to undertake, the Old Bailey testimony
reveals. Also revealed, and for the first time, is EBRD's role in operating the scheme of lures
and inducements MI5 proposed for Ryjenko, and other Russian nationals at the bank. "Honey traps,"
comments a London banking veteran, "are generally illegal. Otherwise, the honey wouldn't be so
sweet, or entrapment worth plotting. It looks like Ryjenko trapped himself. It also looks like
the bank was happy to make its money baiting the trap for MI5."
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. ..."
"... Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
"... Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military ..."
"... Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine. ..."
"... Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy. In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South. Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware. ..."
"... They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!" ..."
"... But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'. ..."
Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media
™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular
article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers
in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege.
Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho
in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable
person, judging by his last name.
Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve
as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you
can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.
Blah-blah-blah – evul Russia, blah-blah, and then:
"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates
the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators
belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists).
The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a
statement
that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.
The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14
beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the
Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted
art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events,
a social center, media organizations,
court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World
War II.
According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only
the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity.
It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one
thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported
separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something
they've
done before and continue to threaten to do.
To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."
Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands
by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims
no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera
and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said
roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate
in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:
"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and
under house arrest after killing two police officers -
to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists
demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.
[ ]
[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right
organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion,
a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was
integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have
accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least
one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence
is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.
Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU)
paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member
of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian
fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself
used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern
Ukraine, and as interior minister
formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the
"White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."
[ ]
In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police
claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building
in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to
cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president
Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."
"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false.
Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."
True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become
President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia,
military
Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come
and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election
have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been
drawn in Ukraine.
That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party
under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing
you would see in a banana republic.
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't
quite aware.
He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic
group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."
Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine
– but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people
are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the
dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens
to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of
those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream
"FASCISM!!!"
But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge
seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old
hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation
which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving
its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.
The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if
Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.
"... Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go. ..."
Earth to the Democratic leadership: Stop talking so much
about Russia.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their
election fortunes have a resounding message for party
leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.
Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year
over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration's
potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to
highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to
uncover any business dealings the president might have with
Russian figures.
But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative
is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more
worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs,
wages and the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an
increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment
in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to
the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say,
hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio
aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin,
about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told
MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're
going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay
for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks
like.
"And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do
about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything
that's going on," he added, "then we're never going to be
able to win elections."
Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary,
and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic
leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic,
and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of
touch...and needs to go.
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group
RootsAction.org
and
the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author
of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep
Spinning Us to Death."
The plan for Democrats to run against
Russia may be falling apart.
After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the
horrific presidency of Donald Trump
After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia
more than on plutocrats in America
After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian
than pro-working-people
After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and
activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to
democracy here at home
After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink
and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive
remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters
Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an
emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.
The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress
keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for
a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of
Democrats in Congress are getting the message.
"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a
resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia,"
The
Hill
reported
over
the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople,
"rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue
with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic
concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."
The Hill
coverage added: "In the wake of a string of
special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an
adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the
economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the
Democrats manage that shift."
Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has
just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under
political illusions.
Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect
between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and
voters around the country.
The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to
make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018,"
The Hill
reported.
"The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that
Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried
that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues
more vital to them."
The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn,
commented
on
the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election
interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a
distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping
the country."
Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats
who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power.
In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics
at play across the country.
Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way:
"We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay
away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia,
whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's
going to happen on its own without us piling on."
Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up
with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."
Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote
reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool.
In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at
a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail:
"What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"
In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said:
"If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like
that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about
it."
But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders
have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now
pulling up lame.
Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the
Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should
also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign
operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the
same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by
leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."
In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the
Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A
recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered,"
by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage.
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign
manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her
communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the
election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."
At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press
and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton
presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach
in a Washington Post
opinion
piece
:
"If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on
our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the
more they'll be with us."
Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.
Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't
give it a second thought if they read my
article
published
by
The Hill
nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are
Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive
message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have
doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign -
trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."
And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than
speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and
elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather
scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with
working-class voters."
But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging
incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a
military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear
weapons."
I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming
a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously
- that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further
demonizing the Russian government."
My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic
beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin,
congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation
with Russia."
Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress
spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to
how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?
In political terms,
The Hill
's June 24 news article headlined "Dems
Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the
thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in
Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will
need help from constituents willing to bluntly
tell
them to snap out of it
.
If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require
real
diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia
, the world's two nuclear-weapons
superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate
hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on
Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will
compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.
The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux
journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton
News Network.
Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to
actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can
plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not
three months ago.
Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months.
If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really
interesting (& damning).
Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should
change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to
care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a
highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in
discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.
The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to
the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated
with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests
between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily
manipulate public opinion.
Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are
meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to
candidate behavior.
It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected
since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be
governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead
trillionaires who own it.
NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the
2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this
massive theft went to prison?
The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under
Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events,
torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote
control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist
organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been
held accountable for their lies and war crimes?
By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean
people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust
and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.
Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being
piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy
satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at
one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious
fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a
crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the
anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.
The first and foremost action should be government funded
elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access.
Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly
counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections
so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth
completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else
can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system,
foundation of democracy.
I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party
messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about
manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything
fundamentally different.
That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning.
We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out
there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.
Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:
Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues
that determine the future of the country.
Rather, they are pissing
contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to
temporarily manipulate public opinion
while maximizing their
revenue.
All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC
readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most
of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our
friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we
are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic
members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely
accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking
to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary
is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long
time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete,
real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context
for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the
arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own.
While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't
already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those
situations.
Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news
the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump
all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated
incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers
they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like
the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!
1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy
into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It
is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives
of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's
base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't
lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its
patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and
ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight
years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It
corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a
professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in
health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups
combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement
of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity
politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic
catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing
themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research).
2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite
vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic
senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as
Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is
no evidence of collusion
[
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc
]. Without collusion, we are
left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled
by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is
it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman
Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against
Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the
century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and
what they believe invites scorn.
3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector
and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they
ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions
that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually,
Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a
vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally
Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who
will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical
destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased
influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned
or aligned.
4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most
Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the
empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as
close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's
anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away
embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the
CIA's Mike Pompeo.
5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality,
economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism,
but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian
collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with
many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.
6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party
elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly
and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political
preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction
of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing
Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a
Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat,
the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case
of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.
I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss
by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have
sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own
shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room.
Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social
media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.
Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.
integer
June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that!
Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures
by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline
in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives,
daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census).
Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic
groups combined) have not increased since 1973.
In trying to
stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively
promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable
strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by
seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in
response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53%
of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW
Research)."
Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep
progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic
Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.
The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not
be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats,
lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned
to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers
at best.
It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This
is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least
represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general
98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways.
The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy
solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry.
That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.
The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the
other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without
embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to
neolib resulted in Trump..
Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face,
French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or
French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.
Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum,
country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces,
never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make
functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems
fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely
dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not
easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.
Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in
three way race is landslide.
In response to point number six:
There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new
party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.
Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just
neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really
comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon
in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon
kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would
govern as a authoritarian.
The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume
that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or
quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message,
consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have
been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.
Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because
Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics
is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth
paying 50 kUSD for".
+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get
nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the
military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign
either.
'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and
hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed
orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just
might be a DIMOCRAT !"
The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very
telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated
so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has
even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization
of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe.
Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through
the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other
European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the
clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).
and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their
colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time,
only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick
again, alas now, when they are the paragons of
success in the west.
But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is
showing a
decent kind of leader on the planet.
Cheers from Bavaria's
So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better
than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got
in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally
a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well,
and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie
Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base
what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist"
third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to
lead what little remains of the party of the working people.
No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest
place they could find from where the problem really was.
As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news
sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this
bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to
oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known
Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence,
they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum
believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles
before looking to these "saviors".
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it
has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in
bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans –
sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating
new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but
an entire edifice.
Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not
suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA,
and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (
not
just Republicans – sorry, integer
)?
Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.
Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is
primarily GOP owned or aligned".
Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to
advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are
"owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this
power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance.
You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.
It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the
Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major
embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.
Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on
right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.
Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable
proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and
Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!
If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about
the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically
supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't
deliver?
NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired
a host of climate change deniers.
For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's
really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an
election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe
Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine
Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats
blame? A powerless figure in Nader.
This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a
billion and a half, with nothing to show for it?
But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't
really Team D's fault you see, and then
Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too
smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why
Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope
to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The
Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of
for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"
The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their
voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the
Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence
the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US
military.
The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas,
with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should
have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a
Palestine election.
The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats
hope to influence.
To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump
voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have
been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary
Clinton"
I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the
deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The
charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics
are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their
corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold
out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should
have won is a rationale for staying the course.
Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose
than change.
"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill
Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal
clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better
policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.
Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones.
When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual
nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to
legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less
the end-game of all this.
And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit
class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020?
Shameful shit right there
Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed
to failure, methinks.
Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of
America's anti-communist right was that they were actually
jealous
of
the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly
– and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing
here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's
alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were
composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.
So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown
reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have
known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there
was
anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a
shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with.
Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway
What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against
any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?
Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the
Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's
'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col.
Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the
Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting
with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.
This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves
destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and
insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian
Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy
theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of
the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control
over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.
Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:
Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in
Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the
Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that
can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
Controlling energy transit and access points.
Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.
Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a
piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the
Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the
governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq,
and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and
Iran.""
It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would
have been accomplished.
But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer,
but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..
Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The
Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos
has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union
was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of
dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of
spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.
The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron
capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks.
The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they
probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed.
However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of
defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct
threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at
the knees
You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though.
Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of
influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is
American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union
fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it
had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a
popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and
96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn
out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of
arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't
represent the actual choice of the citizens.
Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty
good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the
time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the
Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part
of their war goals in ww2
Putin: "If there were no situation with Crimea and other
problems, they would have invented something else to
contain Russia"
Evidently, Russia has finally seen the light and understands inviting
U.S. officials for a discussion on the whims and airy ideas Washington
conjures up out of thin air, and usually on the spur of the moment,
is ineffective and a total waste of time.
As
reported by AP
, Russia has canceled talks that were set for this coming
Friday between Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, and the No.
3 U.S. diplomat, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr.
Ryabkov said
that "the situation is not conducive to holding a round of
this dialogue," criticizing the U.S. for "not having offered anything
specific" to discuss.
"We have said from the very beginning of Washington's exceptionally
destructive policy in regard to applying anti-Russia sanctions, that [such
measures] will not and cannot have an effect desired by the US on our
individuals or entities," Ryabkov told
RIA Novosti
Tuesday.
"But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and
over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to
be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating
links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free
assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only
for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.
Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December
30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went
viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources,
had hacked into the "U.S. electricity grid" through a Vermont utility.
That, in turn, led MSNBC journalists, and various Democratic officials, to instantly sound
the alarm that Putin was trying to deny Americans heat during the winter:
"... Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year. ..."
"... More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to 20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe. ..."
Truth is Russia has been looking for an excuse to get out of the business of Shipping Natural
Gas to the West and the South, altogether and these US Sanctions and EU Complaints about Gazprom
Pipeline Construction, may just be the out they have been looking for. In Jan 2016, Russia completed
7 Massive High-Pressure Gas Pipelines, 2 to India and 5 to China. The ones to India make 4 total
Gas Lines to India, but the 5 to China are the first time China, has had access to Russian Natural
Gas. The contracts India and China signed with Gazprom are 50 years, and the price of NG starts
at more than double the highest rate Gazprom charges in Europe, the icing on the cake however
is that the currency is not US Paper Promissory Notes(Petro Dollars), but Gold Bullion. At full
capacity those pipelines can use every single NG resource Gazprom, has at the present time, and
all future NG resources. So, Gazprom would be foolish not to want to cut all off its Western and
Southern pipelines off, and divert Maximum Flow East. In addition to these NG Pipelines, there
are Crude Oil and Diesel pipelines under construction, going to China and India – Completion date
scheduled for between November 2017 and January 2018. Chinese and Indian Construction Crews completed
their internal distribution pipeline networks in 2016, and have 7 Oil Refineries in various stages
of completion. -– All American III Percenter and Combat Disabled US Veteran"
Now..remind me what was this stuff about 'Murica shipping LNG to europe???
LOL!!!!
That would indeed be delightful if there were even the whiff of truth about it; but, unfortunately,
there is not. Europe is still Russia's most important gas market by far. Numbers on the Russia-China
gas deal are hard to come by and
reporters who quote the price China will pay are just guessing because nobody has officially
disclosed that figure and will not; it is strictly confidential.
However, the China-vs-EU figures are not even close; starting next year, Russia will export
30-38 BcM annually to China, and that might go as high as double as the agreement evolves. So,
say 65 BcM annually, in a couple of years. That's still far less than half
what Gazprom exports annually
to Europe – 178.3 BcM in 2016, a significant jump over the previous year's 158.6 BcM.
Moreover, nearly all the increases in the past decade have been to imports by western
Europe. Despite all the preaching in the media, the only countries which seem to be seriously
trying to wean themselves off of Russian gas – with little to limited success, it must be said
– are eastern European countries. One of the biggest yappers in the west is the UK but the UK
went from zero imports of Russian gas in 2003 to the
fourth-biggest European importer in 2013 .
That little quick-reference pocket guide is actually chock-full of useful facts which you can
whip out and quote whenever some pea-brained bucket-mouthed know-nothing is trying to blizzard
you with blue-sky bullshit. Here's a few:
1. All the blather and angst about reducing Europe's dependency on Russian gas imports conveniently
ignores one buzzing fly in the ointment – long-term contracts. Of 178.6 BcM imported by Europe
in 2013, 166 BcM of it was under 30-year contracts. By far the most of it. And you know what would
happen if the EU broke a contract in order to reduce its imports, even if it could practically
do so under conditions in which domestic sources of supply are rapidly drying up, which it can't.
Also, contract supplies are by definition sanctions-exempt.
2. Home-grown Shale gas is not going to ride to the rescue. Even if Europe could tap supplies
which are not sour with so much nitrogen that you can't even burn it, in order to reach shale
gas supplies of only 28 BcM annually Europe would have to drill 800-1000 new wells every year
for 10 years. Let's see that spun as fiscally viable, or sensible in any way, shape or form.
3. Blabber about the Southern Gas Corridor was always nothing more than that – supplies from
Azerbaijan to Europe were never expected to total more than 30 BcM, about what Russia expects
to export to China starting in 2018, and it would have taken until 2030 to reach that capacity.
4. LNG actually holds the best promise of undercutting Russian supply, and Europe's regassification
terminals actually could handle more than the combined total of Russian imports now; 200 BcM.
But LNG supplies to Europe depend entirely on whether they can be profitable, and all current
objective studies find that Russia can keep LNG away as long as it likes, simply by consistently
pricing its pipeline supplies lower than LNG. Given what it would cost Uncle Sam to get his supplies
to market, Gazprom can still easily do that and turn a handsome profit.
I'm glad you brought that up; quite apart from the very interesting information contained in
the article itself, it is a springboard to a larger discussion – is Russia equally committed
to reducing its dependency on European pipelines as the Europeans are? Some say yes: Russia's
$27 Billion icebreaking LNG Carrier project is an eye-opener which has been more or
less entirely left out of energy discussions. And
its target market is Asia .
Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the
time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent
of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production
from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year.
More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to
20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe.
That's hardcore! Thanks Mark. So the Chinese stepped in to take up the slack created by US
sanctions against Timchenko's Novatek part of the project. Another US epic fail.
It's curious that the West's interpretation of 'globalization' hasn't turned out as expected.
They saw it as western globo-corporations buying in around the world, but globalization has
naturally progressed as 'multi-polarization' of global power, away from the US & the West's
dominance. The Chinese stepping in is a perfect example. It shows that Russia has real options
which it is building and if needs be, at some point in the future, tell the 'No thanks!'.
Trump quickly took advantage with a series of tweets on Tuesday, and conservative provocateur
James O'Keefe piled on by releasing a video with a CNN producer caught on camera talking about the
network's Russian coverage being ratings-driven.
...Trump tweeted that "they caught Fake News CNN cold." He lumped ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York
Times and The Washington Post together in the same "fake news" category.
...Aides also believe that highlighting media mistakes could be a useful way of questioning the
credibility of much of the reporting on the scandals surrounding the White House to convince supporters
that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt.
...
Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., suggested in an interview with Breitbart News that "maybe Jeff Zucker
should do an on-camera briefing about CNN's fake news scandal before the White House does any more
of them." CNN's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been particularly vocal in protesting
the administration's dwindling number of on-camera news briefings.
He also tweeted a link to the video posted by O'Keefe's Project Veritas. The hidden-camera video
showed John Bonifield, an Atlanta-based producer in CNN's medical unit, talking about how the "ratings
are incredible" for the network's Russian coverage. He said the network has no "smoking gun" showing
wrongdoing by Trump and that "the president is probably right to say, look, you are witch-hunting
me."
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into
alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at
whipping up support for war with Russia.
The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot down a Syrian warplane, setting
off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors of the Times have the closest ties with US military
and intelligence officials and no doubt were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.
Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the language of war to assert: "A rival
foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented
nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."
The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts."
The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:
"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts
of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens
of thousands of emails to the website WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage
the Clinton campaign.
"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in some cases tried to alter or delete
voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers of more than 100 local election officials in the days before
the November 8 vote."
Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times ' assertions. What is the evidence
that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied
material to WikiLeaks, or that (other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The
entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.
If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported claims by US intelligence
agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January 2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence
apparatus, mainly to the Times and the Washington Post .
The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers, are based on a National
Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web publication, which even The Intercept admitted
contained no underlying evidence to substantiate the NSA's claims.
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead,
the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not
a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like
"we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.
In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible sources of the leaked Hillary
Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper
makes no mention of the content of the leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National
Committee to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.
For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy," as the Times puts
it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington to manipulate elections all over the world.
One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the US government financed political
parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations, blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its
own nominees by rigging elections in countries on every continent.
Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop snooping operations against foreign
governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had
hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does
all sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.
As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies.
This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly
on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks
such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.
The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of
Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading
the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.
The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class
want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the
2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.
A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells out the issues relatively clearly.
In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican,
"are working to ensure that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals like
Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose sanctions against Russia for its actions
in backing the Syrian government.
In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem is not that Russia is interfering
with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and
the broader Middle East. The newspaper is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating
military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.
For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents in the political establishment
is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class, which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world
a new and catastrophic world war.
"Tillerson called on China to make greater efforts to halt "illicit" revenue streams to North
Korea that allegedly help fund Pyongyang's military programs. Just last week, he told a congressional
committee the Trump administration was "at a stage" where "we are going to have to start taking
secondary sanctions"-that is, penalise countries and corporations that engage in economic activities
with North Korea.
Unilateral "secondary sanctions" imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies.
China is, by far, North Korea's largest trading partner. US officials and the media have repeatedly
accused Beijing of failing to do enough to choke off trade and finance with the Pyongyang regime.
Any penalties against Chinese individuals or entities would quickly sour relations between the
US and China."
I will be extremely surprised if Washington takes any steps which result in sanctions against
China. For one thing, a staggering number of American brands and corporations
have
factories and manufacturing assets in China , and pissing off the Chinese risks hurting the
bottom line. For another, China is one of the few countries with
money to lend which can match the American appetite for borrowing.
It seems patently obvious to me that countries which find themselves the target of American
sanctions should immediately react by kicking out American businesses in their country and embargoing
American goods for import. The United States does not make very much which is so unique and rare
that you could not find it anywhere else. American businesses and corporations will react with
fury to trade actions taken against them because of posturing by the government. Do I have to
think of everything?
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and
conflicted people!"
The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for
--
handcuffs and a perp walk?
Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".
If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts
of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal
prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified
information.
Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard
invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall
by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.
Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty"
for the status quo; and whose naïve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus
operandi of the Imperial City.
Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from
Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.
After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened
him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the
Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.
So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power
to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources
and methods" in the slightest.
The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially
Washington's adversaries–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related
communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by
publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.
Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference
in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.
Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to
obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that
gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".
Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short
of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.
But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous
coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.
That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy
Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own
demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight
jacket.
Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a
witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional
Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.
Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while
affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.
No he won't!
Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director
of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated
threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition
that Mueller fully subscribed to.
So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent
it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have
proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors-even if the crime
itself never happened.
To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal
Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind
the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.
Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.
They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's
ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while
the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.
So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.
Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still
snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing
America.
But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence
community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed
upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators
had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.
In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir
Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the
course of the next year.
Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable
sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate
attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.
So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string
of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President
and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia
and its leader.
Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine
and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII --
there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer
named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect
its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting
its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression
by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.
There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State
opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?
In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.
Pathetically, they still think its game on.
David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from
the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information
Clearing House.
"False flag" operation charges for various "hacks" and "dossiers" now have additional validity. The DNC hack is the most prominent
of them.
Notable quotes:
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House. ..."
"... "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. ..."
"... In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential. ..."
"... Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents. ..."
"... This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena. ..."
"... The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. ..."
So many of you are triggered to the point of feverish insanity. What sort of subhuman will you become when Trump is vindicated
from all Russian collusion claims and the DOJ starts tossing faggots into dank prison cells for ginning up fake intelligence reports
to take down a President? Paul Sperry from the NY Post is out with a report tonight, stating the Senate is about to ramp up their
efforts in investigating the birthplace of the debunked Trump-Russian dossier, the one thar claimed germophobe Trump enjoyed getting
urinated on by Russian hookers. For democrats, this might lead to a Mortal Kombat fatality move if implicated. Criminal charges might
rain fire upon them -- like the second coming of Jesus. Many of you still believe said dossier was, in fact, correct. To those people,
dare I say, prove it.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer
questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election
and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.
What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former
Wall Street Journal investigative reporters." But congressional sources say it's actually an opposition-research group for Democrat
s, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda. "These weren't mercenaries
or hired guns," a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. "These guys had a vested personal and ideological
interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified
Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS
to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.
More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential
campaign.
In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and
partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election
Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies
bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond
to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential.
Both partners of Fusion GPS have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch a former Journal bureau chief in Mexico City, married to a Mexican
woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. His partner, Thomas Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican
business magazine. Perhaps we should now investigate the Democrats' ties to Mexico?
Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department,
including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing
the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice
inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat
activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the
FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents.
Criminal at Large Loretta Lynch also had a DOJ tax payer slush fund to fund Political Leftists groups.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to
immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State Department and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed, leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia
and Albania. According to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros' Open
Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.
As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia, and other Soros-linked
organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.
Why this, when Clinton committed multiple felonies with her private server conducting state department pay-to-play business
for Clinton Foundation cash?
This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through
that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena.
The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense
to felonies. Etc.
The dossier is not and was not a side show, it was a deliberate creation that failed. I hope all of these cocksuckers have
their assets seized and go to jail ASAP --
I completely agree with Barnes on this one https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY
Most of you are not any where near pissed off enough and you should be -- No wonder nothing much gets done and we end up with
shit like this in our government when people are so fucking apathetic and acquiescent. We should all be livid and demand accountability
or we certainly won't get it --
Yes the fusion centers nationwide are all part of the Phoenix project brought to us by CIA and in more recent times the invention
of DHS and all the other control mechanisms created here in USA today. The Phoenix project has morphed into the playbook of all
these chicken shit worthless wars that are really just corp control and political control mechanisms for the insane psychopaths
and sociopaths that have dominated Amercian governemnt for a very long time. The terrorism was a creation of these same people
to be used as a tool and controlled. BHOs crew put it all on steroids for all of us to see and in a perverse way that is a very
good thing indeed -- At least now many Americans see some of it. Americans are very slow to comprehend even their own demise.
All of the government agencies are well past out of control, not just the spooks. Look at what IRS did and so far giot away
with ? They also need to be prosecuted and dealt with severely, but they won't unless we demand such and raise hell about all
of it --
So the entire DC Ruling Class is assembled in a circular firing squad, each faction investigating the other and threatening
long prison sentences for all playerswhile the rest of America sits in mortified silence... real Banana Republic stuff... much
of this overlaid with assassination talk, impeachment and vicious propaganda...
Meanwhile the ROW must be amused to watch the Pax Americana Empire self-immolate.
Glenn R. Simpson is FUSION 's President and Managing Partner. Simpson has over 20 years of experience in research and investigations,
including 14 years with The Wall Street Journal as the Washington bureau's lead investigative reporter. Since entering the commercial
intelligence field in early 2009, he has managed complex projects in the US, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.
Simpson specializes in the banking and securities sectors. He is a seasoned expert on the relationship between government and
business and in particular in financial regulation, and is well known in the capital's financial policymaking, regulatory and
enforcement communities. For his articles in The Wall Street Journal and more recently for private clients, he has analyzed numerous
multinational corporations including difficult international subjects such as banks in the Middle East. He is well versed in the
arcana of tax havens, offshore banking, and securities and accounting fraud. He is also in expert in political influence and is
widely known among Washington's top lobbyists, lawyers, journalists and lawmakers.
In addition to his long tenure in Washington, Simpson was stationed for three years in Brussels. There he developed strong
knowledge of European business practices and structures as well as many contacts in the corporate world and media. His recent
research work includes a matter resulting in a significant win for a major government contractor, the exposure of political corruption
in Latin America and the exposure of a case of securities fraud in the UK. In December 2010, his nearly two-year investigation
of a prominent family ended in a favorable client verdict worth over $70 million.
Simpson is a recipient of numerous awards for his articles, speaks frequently in academic fora and has appeared on many broadcast
news programs including CNN, Nightline, Jim Lehrer NewsHour and the BBC. He is the co-author (with Larry J. Sabato) of the book,
Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books/Random House, 1996).
Peter R. Fritsch is a FUSION Partner and Project Leader. Fritsch is a multilingual investigator, writer and manager with 24
years of experience on four continents. As a reporter and bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, he led and participated in
Pulitzer Prize-nominated investigations from Mexico, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Brussels and Washington, DC. He founded the WSJ's
Sao Paulo bureau in 1997.
Fritsch has written widely on the global petroleum industry, guided a global team investigating the oil and natural resource
industries for the WSJ, and has run top caliber corporate coverage around the world. He enjoys a large network of contacts in
business, media and politics in Latin America, Asia and Europe.
His U.S. bases have included Houston, Boston and New York. While based in Singapore, he worked extensively in important emerging
markets like Vietnam, Indonesia and India and oversaw newsgathering across South and Southeast Asia.
Most recently, Fritsch led the WSJ's national security and foreign affairs coverage in Washington, DC. In addition to spearheading
coverage of the Pentagon and intelligence community, he has reported extensively on Iran's efforts to evade nuclear sanctions.
Fritsch's work has been recognized with several industry awards. His investigation of a Mexican corporate executive ended in
the executive's eventual prosecution by Mexican authorities. He was among the first to sound the alarm regarding a multi-billion
dollar Ponzi scheme in the Caribbean. His work in Europe included major terror finance and corporate bribery investigations.
Benjamin S. Schmidt is FUSION 's Managing Director. Schmidt is a former government intelligence analyst. Most recently, he
served as Team Lead in the Middle East and Europe office of the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Over 7 years at Treasury, Schmidt ran complex transnational cases involving banking and other forms of financial activity.
His work was often included in the President's Daily Brief and used to guide policy decisions with global ramifications.
Schmidt has worked extensively with Middle East governments and is schooled in identifying and mapping financial networks.
He has wide knowledge of financial regulation, international monetary transfer systems and open-source corporate research. At
Treasury, he collaborated with the intelligence community, regulators, policymakers and foreign partners to design economic sanctions
programs, and has wide knowledge of sanctions laws.
Ben has served as a mentor to a cadre of junior Treasury investigators, instructing his partners in the art of transnational
discovery. He is especially adept at devising databases and customized technological solutions to research problems. He is the
recipient of several prestigious internal awards for his work and holds an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at
the University of Maryland.
Funny you ask, but when the FBI doesn't cooperate with a congressional inquiry, their boss should fire them!
THE PRESIDENT is the FBI's boss!
He should immediately fire any FBI official who refuses to cooperate with a congressional investigation.
Same for the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all the other Executive branches of Government. The congress holds the purse, but the President
is the person who ultimately holds oversight over these rogue branches of Government.
What the hell is he waiting for, Isn't "Your Fired" part of the mans DNA, did he not promise to drain this swamp?
"The result of a North Korean regime collapse would be catastrophic and may trigger a dangerous
race between China and the US-ROK (Republic of Korea) forces attempting to secure strategic and
symbolic locations such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility and Pyongyang," Andrew Injoo Park and
Kongdan Oh wrote for the National Bureau of Asian Research.
China worries about both of those, especially the latter.
Beijing values Pyongyang as a strategic buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea. If
North Korea were to fall, it could lead to a US-allied unified Korea, with US troops right on
China's border."
"... He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability champion – America just the opposite. ..."
"... Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression, controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying nuclear war. ..."
"... On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding: ..."
"... Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically, its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington. ..."
"... Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved. ..."
"... Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority. ..."
Instead of fulfilling a campaign promise to improve bilateral relations, Trump so far continues
acting provocatively.
He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct
confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to
happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability
champion – America just the opposite.
It's recklessly waging wars in multiple theaters, threatening conflicts against North Korea, Iran,
and perhaps Russia the way things are going.
Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression,
controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying
nuclear war.
Last week, Senate members near unanimously imposed new illegal sanctions on Russia, including
on its energy sector. House action awaits.
On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing
sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in
the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding:
"US sanctions on Russia related to the situation in eastern Ukraine will remain in place until
Russia fully honors its obligations under the Minsk Agreements."
"US sanctions related to Crimea will not be lifted until Russia ends its occupation of the peninsula."
Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically,
its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington.
Fact: Crimea is Russian territory, its newest republic, supporting the will of its people,
correcting a historic error.
Fact: The territory won't be handed back to US-installed putschists running Ukraine. Its people
won't be betrayed for Washington or anyone else.
Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the
country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved.
Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular
Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority.
International observers called the process open, free and fair despite ongoing war, creating enormous
hardships for its people. They want no one else leading them.
They want their sovereign independence respected. They reject foreign meddling in their affairs
– especially by America, NATO, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their rogue allies.
... ... ...
Visit Stephens website: www.stephenlendman.org
(Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. - My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html - Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished
guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
The effort to produce the current clusterfuck has had a decades-long gestation. If one accepts
that premise then the argument put forward by The Saker, for example, regarding the short term
focus of western MSM in service of the long term goals of the elite becomes more comprehensible.
No reason to consider thinking people in "the West " as somehow less savvy than the elites of
the RF or the PRC. Short term focus is merely throwing coloured paper into the air for the distraction
of the masses.
The western long term strategy has been sussed, I think.
Actually that's Egyptian President Gamal Nasser. Egypt didn't officially adopt Ba'athism as a
political philosophy though I can imagine Nasser and other Egyptian politicians of his time may
have been sympathetic towards it or parts of it. It was Arab nationalist and secular in character
and preached religious tolerance. Ba'athism was mainly important in Syria and Iraq in the 1950s
and 1960s. Of course what confuses the issue of Ba'athism is that there was a time when Egypt
and Syria agreed to form a short-lived union called the United Arab Republic.
The trend was clear, though. All the big, important Arab nations were evolving towards being modern,
more secular states.
The Soviet Union was also a player at that time, supporting secular, moderate Arab nationalism.
Then the trend turned backwards toward medievalism. I believe the turning point was in the
mid-1970's. A Combination of Israeli triumphalism and the U.S. (under Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew
Brzezinski) placing their stake on Saudi Wahhabism, to counter Soviet influence.
Apparently in 1958 there was a high level of awareness of USA duplicity and deceit wrt the
well being of the mostly impoverished masses of SA as opposed to the USA's hegemonic agenda that
reflected its struggle against the 'evil commie aggressor' .at least in Venezuela
"Nixon and his wife, Patricia, had arrived in Venezuela in the course of their Latin American
"goodwill tour." At the time, relations were strained between the Republican administration in
Washington and Latin Americans on the left side of the political spectrum. They charged that President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, in focusing on cold war rivalries with the Soviet Union, had failed to address
pressing economic needs in the Western Hemisphere while extending his backing to anti-communist
dictatorial regimes."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/vice-president-nixons-motorcade-attacked-in-venezuela-may-13-1958-106584
"
One other turning point could also have been when Egypt under Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal
after British, French and Israeli attempts to seize it and use the invasion as cover to assassinate
Nasser in 1956. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Among other things the war that followed and Nasser's crackdown on civil liberties of the Egyptian
Jewish community led to thousands of those people fleeing to Israel (and perhaps giving Israel
fuel for planning future attacks on the Sinai peninsula).
Another turning point was in 1973 when Arab countries imposed an oil embargo and raised oil
prices after the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This was in the wake of the collapse
of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 when the US went off the gold standard (due in part
to US spending on the Vietnam War). The depreciation of the US dollar (with the price of oil tied
to that) Also meant that for Middle Eastern oil producers, imports (especially food imports) became
more expensive and raising the price of oil was one way of dealing with the increase in the price
of grain and other global food staples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
Thanks for the correction. I recall that Iran was also secular and democratic (not Baathist) until
Americans foisted regime change on it in 1953. America has been subverting independent democracies
around the world for decades. They do this while screaming about spreading democracy. The de facto
one-party state USA has a perverted idea of democracy.
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant
to be. ..."
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his
entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was
meant to be.
Another Mayberry Machiavelli from intelligence community
Notable quotes:
"... "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said." ..."
"... Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs" ..."
Appears to be a moron:
"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from the Obama administration told the House Intelligence
committee that Moscow's high-tech intrusion did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting
of election results.
Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National
Committee, his fears about an attack on the election itself and his rationale for designating
U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical
infrastructure in early January, two weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration.
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated
cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson
said."
"In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news
story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King,
Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition
to American interventionism during his lifetime.[28] Johnson argued that American soldiers fighting
in Afghanistan and Iraq were playing the role of the Good Samaritan, consistent with King's beliefs,
and that they were fighting to establish the peace for which King hoped.[29][30] Jeremy Scahill
of Salon.com called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use
of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott (also of Salon.com) argued that
based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen."
"Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted
in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have
supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "
He lies! My what-if machine (what I have in my basement) tells me that Dr. King would have
opposed, in the most militant manner possible, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars!
You didn't have to consult the alternative-worlds TARDIS machine database to find out that Dr
King would have opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: here's the speech he made opposing the
war in Vietnam which may have made him a target for assassination.
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated
cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson
said."
He's half-right – the idea certainly is simple. Just like him.
Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In
Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs".
"As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda
from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades,
seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and
foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable
of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.
The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael
Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and
Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development
(AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.
The Times, channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful
factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted
by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime."
David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders
to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that
any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign
and the Russians."
Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday
he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also
publicly stated .
That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated
contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .
Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign
colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####
This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump
is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle
is just too good to let go.
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence.
Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west
to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and
that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere.
Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open;
a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it
looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being
lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.
"... Trump's decision highlights a destructive and complicating feature of American foreign policy, which is the unspoken but ironclad prohibition against admitting military defeat. It's not only diplomats and congressmen who are bound by this prohibition. Growing up, I was taught in (a very good) public school that America had never lost a war, and that the only war it hadn't won outright, Vietnam, had been fought to a tragic stalemate. ..."
"... As for the Taliban and al Qaeda, both are active and thriving, a situation made worse by the fact that the country's elected government is riven with internal conflict and failing to carry out promised reforms that would shore up the country's political stability. Sixteen years on, America has accomplished none of its stated goals in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The reasons for this monumental failure are not mysterious -- they were elegantly and convincingly described in Anand Gopal's 2014 book No Good Men Among the Living. Gopal focuses not on America's successful initial effort to expel al Qaeda from Afghanistan (it was a rout), nor on its destruction of the Taliban (complete by 2002), nor even on its failure to track down Osama bin Laden (which was not of much consequence to the larger war), but on what happened afterward. ..."
"... Worse than this basic political misreading, however, was America's failure to account for the way its military presence in Afghanistan would distort the country's politics. That the appearance of the mightiest army in world history in an economically undeveloped country-one organized to a large extent around tribal allegiances-would have a seismic effect on that country's politics should not have been any kind of a surprise. ..."
"... Yet the US military was blindsided again and again by the effects of its own presence. Gopal details how in the wake of the Taliban's disappearance, anti-Taliban warlords exploited the US military's mandate to keep finding and killing terrorists even if there weren't any left to kill. ..."
"... Of course, these weren't actual terrorists -- those had already fled across the border into Pakistan or simply gone home. The people Sherzai directed the military to target were simply Sherzai's enemies. American soldiers were turned into excessively well-armed death squads and unwittingly thrust into local political disputes, with the obvious destabilizing effects down the road. ..."
"... The US army also, through a combination of historical ignorance and disastrous blundering, failed to populate Afghanistan's post-invasion government with the people who could have given it a chance at real stability. ..."
Donald Trump's administration is now engulfed by so many self-inflicted scandals, which arise
on such a regular basis, that it's hard to imagine the President has any time left for governing.
Nevertheless, as commander-in-chief Trump remains the leader of a military force that operates in
more than a hundred countries around the globe, forcing him to act with some frequency in matters
of life and death for millions of people, nearly all of them non-Americans. Since May, the military
officers who serve Trump have been clamoring for an injection of new troops into Afghanistan, and
last week the Pentagon announced that Trump's generals would get what they want. America has been
at war in Afghanistan for nearly seventeen years (three years longer than the Vietnam War, hitherto
the country's longest foreign war). The goal of this new "surge" is to address the unstable and deteriorating
security situation in Afghanistan, the same situation that prompted Obama to send 30,000 additional
troops to that country in 2009. That the problem persists eight years down the line should tell you
something about how Obama's surge went, but military advisors understandably tend to propose military
solutions to the problems they confront.
Trump's decision highlights a destructive and complicating feature of American foreign policy,
which is the unspoken but ironclad prohibition against admitting military defeat. It's not only diplomats
and congressmen who are bound by this prohibition. Growing up, I was taught in (a very good) public
school that America had never lost a war, and that the only war it hadn't won outright, Vietnam,
had been fought to a tragic stalemate.
The truth, of course, is that America's defeat in Vietnam
was total. The US entered the country with the goal of preventing it from unifying under a communist
government; when it left the country a decade and a half later, Vietnam unified under a communist
government. It doesn't get much clearer than that. But from the moment the inevitability of that
defeat became obvious to Washington, the Nixon administration did everything possible to avoid calling
defeat by its name, opting instead for the euphemistic phrase "peace with honor" in the 1973 speech
in which Nixon announced the final withdrawal of US forces from the country.
Not much has changed over the last four decades, and while it is easy to be profligate in drawing
parallels between Vietnam and the war on terror, here's one parallel it would be reckless to ignore:
as in Vietnam, one of the main reasons for the duration of the war in Afghanistan is America's refusal
to acknowledge that it has lost. In 2007, George W. Bush addressed the American Enterprise Institute
and stated the goals of the war in Afghanistan: "to help its people defeat the terrorists"
-- he meant
the Taliban as well as al Qaeda-"and establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects
the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war
against extremists and terrorists."
Four years later, announcing a drawdown of US troops that would
conclude in 2014, Barack Obama claimed that many of these goals had been achieved or were on their
way to completion, but he acknowledged one outstanding task. "The goal that we seek is achievable,"
he said, "and can be expressed simply: no safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch
attacks against our homeland, our allies." Today, Afghanistan is neither stable nor moderate, and
the mutual allegations of fraud that surrounded its disputed 2014 election call into question whether
it is democratic. As for the Taliban and al Qaeda, both are active and thriving, a situation made
worse by the fact that the country's elected government is riven with internal conflict and failing
to carry out promised reforms that would shore up the country's political stability. Sixteen years
on, America has accomplished none of its stated goals in Afghanistan.
The reasons for this monumental failure are not mysterious -- they were elegantly and convincingly
described in Anand Gopal's 2014 book No Good Men Among the Living. Gopal focuses not on America's
successful initial effort to expel al Qaeda from Afghanistan (it was a rout), nor on its destruction
of the Taliban (complete by 2002), nor even on its failure to track down Osama bin Laden (which was
not of much consequence to the larger war), but on what happened afterward.
Unlike the Communist
Party in Vietnam forty years earlier, the Taliban was not an organization that enjoyed anything like
a stable base of social or political legitimacy. It was instead made up of fanatical thugs who destroyed
public life as such in Afghanistan. These thugs recognized the hopelessness of opposing the US military,
and so in 2001 and 2002, they simply laid down their weapons, disbanded, and returned to their homes.
Most Afghans were happy to see them go. (One of the best things about Gopal's book is that it tells
the story from the perspective of the Afghans; aside from his own, American voices are largely absent
from the narrative.)
Afghanistan now had a real opportunity to reorganize its system of government, but that opportunity
could only succeed if the US was sufficiently careful and perceptive to respect and work with the
country's underlying political complexities. It wasn't. To take just one example, the US has repeatedly
made the mistake of treating the Taliban as an outside agitator in Afghan political life, citing
the fact that many of its key members were educated at extremist madrassas in Pakistan. While this
is true, the boys who were educated there were hardly foreigners. They were simply Afghans who had
no domestic prospects for education whatsoever, as the country's civil war of 1992–1996 had resulted
in the destruction of many Afghan schools. Those who returned from Pakistan and went on to make up
the Taliban may have been radicalized abroad, but they were very much native sons. By failing to
treat the Taliban as a homegrown political phenomenon, and by assuming that military force alone
would be enough to drive it out, the US ensured that the Taliban would be able to regroup again and
again.
Worse than this basic political misreading, however, was America's failure to account for the
way its military presence in Afghanistan would distort the country's politics. That the appearance
of the mightiest army in world history in an economically undeveloped country-one organized to a
large extent around tribal allegiances-would have a seismic effect on that country's politics should
not have been any kind of a surprise.
Yet the US military was blindsided again and again by the effects
of its own presence. Gopal details how in the wake of the Taliban's disappearance, anti-Taliban warlords
exploited the US military's mandate to keep finding and killing terrorists even if there weren't
any left to kill. One of these warlords, a man named Gul Agha Sherzai, made himself wealthy by funneling
supplies to the Americans and renting them land on which to build military bases.
Having embedded
US military infrastructure in his territory, Sherzai put it to work. For months, his network of operatives
fed the Americans intelligence on the identities and whereabouts of terrorists. Of course, these
weren't actual terrorists -- those had already fled across the border into Pakistan or simply gone home.
The people Sherzai directed the military to target were simply Sherzai's enemies. American soldiers
were turned into excessively well-armed death squads and unwittingly thrust into local political
disputes, with the obvious destabilizing effects down the road.
The US army also, through a combination of historical ignorance and disastrous blundering, failed
to populate Afghanistan's post-invasion government with the people who could have given it a chance
at real stability. The US pretended as though the Afghan civil war had never occurred, and allowed
mujahedeen and warlords who had terrorized the country throughout the 1990s to assume positions of
political power, which did not endear Afghans to their new rulers. Meanwhile blindly targeted raids
often eliminated key American allies. Gopal describes one instance in damning detail, a January 2002
raid carried out by the US in Uruzgan, a province north of Kandahar, that killed "twenty-one pro-American
leaders and their employees . . . the core of any future anti-Taliban leadership-stalwarts who had
outlasted the Russian invasion, the civil war, and the Taliban years but would not survive their
own allies." It was as if, "in a single night, masked gunman [in an American city] had wiped out
the entire city council, mayor's office, and police department."
This manner of governance continued for years, and slowly the Afghan political system reorganized
itself not around the needs of the Afghan people but around the distorting gravitational pull of
the US military. Proximity to international aid became the key determinant of economic influence
and power. Serving up enemies to American forces became the surest way to guarantee yourself a seat
at the table. At no point did the US focus primarily on encouraging the development of a state that
would be able to survive on its own, without enormous quantities of military and economic support
from the US. And so the Taliban's insurgency thrives today, with the group controlling outright or
at least seriously contesting 253 of the country's 400 districts (those numbers were reported in
March by the Taliban itself, but they were described as a "conservative estimate" by the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal ). The Islamic State (IS) is now active in Afghanistan
as well.
So, on the one hand, the US has a sixteen-year legacy of upending Afghan society in many different
ways through the use of military force. But on the other hand, the prospect of the US leaving Afghanistan
entirely does not engender the kind of wary optimism that would have been justified when the US pulled
its last soldiers out of Saigon in March 1975. In that case, it was obvious the country would unify
under the communist government that should have been ruling the country for years. Afghanistan has
no similarly obvious organization or party ready to take the reins and usher in stability. What it
has instead is a slightly more autonomous-than-usual puppet government that cannot survive on its
own, plus a rebellion of authoritarian theocrats who control more than a third of the country. Forget
nation-building and political miscalculations for a minute. What Afghanistan needs now, immediately,
is to be protected from the terrorist groups that are running amok inside its borders. Why not just
send a few thousand more troops?
There are a few problems with that line of argument. First, it sidesteps the fact that military
occupations have negative consequences by definition. Whatever good an occupying army does,
it also kills people, and you can't regularly kill people in a foreign country without at least semi-regularly
killing the wrong people. Those killings will make people angry and scared, and they will destabilize
the social and political bonds that tie a place together. That fact raises the second problem with
continuing the military occupation, which is that the only way to counteract those inevitable negative
consequences is to be simultaneously implementing a plan for political reconciliation and reconstruction,
hoping as you go along that the positive consequences of that plan will manage to outpace the negative
consequences of the occupation. Trump doesn't have such a plan. Neither did Obama, and neither did
Bush. The previous two Presidents both tacitly accepted the fracturing and destabilizing of Afghanistan
as a price worth paying to deny al Qaeda a base of operations, and Trump's decision to send more
troops shows that he has reached the same conclusion. Our continued military presence in Afghanistan
will certainly be able to disrupt the Taliban, al Qaeda, IS, and whatever new groups rise out of
their ashes, but it will also entail the continued destruction of Afghan society.
The US may have had a chance to oust the Taliban and supervise the emergence of a stable democracy
in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002-albeit a very, very slim one-but it blew that chance, and the US
now has no prospects for improving the stability of Afghan politics through military force. It was
US military aid that supported the mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviets in the first place,
which led directly to the Taliban's taking power and sheltering al Qaeda. It was the invasion of
Iraq that helped to birth IS, and it was the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya that turned that
country into North Africa's preeminent terrorist haven. Whatever group succeeds IS as the West's
terrorist bogeyman, you can bet it will have come to prominence by seizing opportunities presented
to it by the US military. While the US should do all it can via diplomacy and economic assistance
to promote stable government in Afghanistan, that requires a President with the capacity for thinking
in diplomatic terms, a luxury we do not presently enjoy. In the absence of that luxury, the US should
at the very least, finally, withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan.
Here is a good indicator of just how dire the state of America's foreign policy decision making
has become: at the moment, the best prospect we have for any kind of military drawdown in the Middle
East would be for Trump to belatedly act on the isolationist beliefs he expressed throughout his
campaign, to choose crude, reflexive isolationism over his generals' deluded insistence that additional
military force can now accomplish what it has failed to accomplish over the last fifteen years. The
best we can do, in other words, is place our hopes in Steve Bannon.
If you like this article, please
subscribe to n+1.
Lyndon LaRouche at his finest-the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying
the British Empire and their centuries old means of subverting nations. Here, an excerpt from
a September 2009 webcast.
"... Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. ..."
"... Globe and Mail ..."
"... [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning]. ..."
"... In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation. ..."
"... The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrès ..."
"... Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada. ..."
"... Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym. ..."
"... The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling. ..."
If a guy does something bad to someone else, but then complains later when another person does
that same thing to him, what do we say? Stop being a hypocrite. Either you change tact or you got
what you deserved.
Does the same moral logic apply to countries?
Purported Russian meddling in US, French and other elections has received significant attention
recently. "Russian meddling abroad underscores need for electoral reform in Canada"
declared a Rabble.ca headline this week while CBC
noted "Russian attempts to infiltrate U.S. election systems found in 21 states: officials". An
earlier Globe and Mail headline
stated "Russia was warned against U.S. election meddling: ex-CIA head" while a Global News
story
noted "Canada should worry about Russian interference in elections: former CSIS head."
Interference in another country's election is an act of aggression and should not happen in a
just world so these accusations deserve to be aired and investigated. But, how can one take the outrage
seriously when the media commentators who complain about Russia ignore clear-cut Canadian meddling
elsewhere and the decades-long history of US interference in other countries' elections around the
world, including in Canada.
Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada
funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner
Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. Ottawa also paid for 500
Canadians of Ukrainian descent to observe the elections. Three years after Globe and Mail
reporter Mark MacKinnon
explained :
[Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly
meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among
20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually,
he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed
media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day
by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr.
Yanukovich [winning].
Canada has also interfered aggressively in Haitian elections. After
plotting , executing
and consolidating the 2004 coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide's government, Canadian officials interceded
in the first election after the coup. In 2006 Canada's then-chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre
Kingsley, led a team of Canadian observers to Haiti for elections that excluded the candidate – Father
Gérard Jean Juste – of Haiti's most popular political party Fanmi Lavalas. With the country gripped
by social upheaval after widespread fraud in the counting, including thousands of ballots found burned
in a dump, Kingsley released a statement claiming, "the election was carried out with no violence
or intimidation, and no accusations of fraud." Chair of the International Mission for Monitoring
Haitian Elections, Kingsley's statement went on to laud Jacques Bernard, the head of the electoral
council despite the fact that Bernard had already been widely derided as corrupt and biased even
by other members of the coup government's electoral council.
In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power
(with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million
for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives
on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had
in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research
explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying
the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed
to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian
officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's
vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation.
Half of the electoral council agreed to the OAS changes, but half didn't. The second round was
unconstitutional,
noted Haïti Liberté's Kim Ives, as "only four of the eight-member Provisional Electoral Council
(CEP) have voted to proceed with the second round, one short of the five necessary. Furthermore,
the first round results have not been published in the journal of record, Le Moniteur, and President
Préval has not officially convoked Haitians to vote, both constitutional requirements."
The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the
elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise
in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrès explained
"the form of democracy that Washington, Paris and Ottawa want to impose on us is becoming a reality."
Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including
Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada.
You haven't heard about that one?
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis the Kennedy administration wanted Ottawa's immediate and
unconditional support in putting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on high alert.
Diefenbaker hesitated, unsure if Washington was telling him the full story about Soviet/Cuban plans
or once again bullying the small island nation.
Not happy with Diefenbaker's attitude during the Cuban Missile Crisis or his ambivalence towards
nuclear weapons in Canada, President John F. Kennedy worked to precipitate the downfall of his minority
Conservative government. Kennedy preferred Lester Pearson's Liberals who criticized Diefenbaker on
Cuba and were willing to accept nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.
"In the fall of 1962," notes Peter McFarlane in Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America
, "the State Department began to leak insulting references about Diefenbaker to the U.S. and
Canadian press." Articles highly critical of the Canadian prime minister appeared in the New
York Times , Newsweek and other major US media outlets. On January 3 the outgoing commander
of NATO, US General Lauris Norstad, made a surprise visit to Ottawa where he claimed Canada would
not be fulfilling her commitments to the north Atlantic alliance if she did not acquire nuclear warheads.
Diefenbaker believed the US general came to Canada "at the behest of President Kennedy" to set the
table "for Pearson's conversion to the United States nuclear policy."
A future prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, concurred. He asked:
Do you think that General Norstad, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe,
came to Ottawa as a tourist on January 3 to call publicly on the Canadian government to respect
its [nuclear] commitments? Do you think it was by chance that Mr. Pearson, in his speech of January
12, was able to quote the authority of General Norstad? Do you think it was inadvertent that,
on January 30, the State Department gave a statement to journalists reinforcing Mr. Pearson's
claims and crudely accusing Mr. Diefenbaker of lying? you believe that it was by coincidence
that this series of events ended with the fall of the [Diefenbaker] government on February 5?
A State Department official, Willis Armstrong, described Kennedy's attitude towards the March
1963 Canadian election: "He wanted to intervene and make sure Pearson got elected. It was very evident
the president was uptight about the possibility that Pearson might not win." Later Kennedy's Secretary
of State Dean Rusk admitted "in a way, Diefenbaker was right, for it was true that we preferred Mike
Pearson."
During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected
prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster
to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely
associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym.
Washington may have aided Pearson's campaign in other ways. Diefenbaker wondered if the CIA was
active during the 1963 election while External Affairs Minister Howard Green said a US agent attended
a couple of his campaign meetings in BC.
To Washington's delight, Pearson won the election and immediately accepted nuclear-armed Bomarc
missiles.
The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they
wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling.
Taken from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
Despite initial popularity among his fellow party members and the American public, McCarthy's
career began to decline. Even some moderate Republicans withdrew their support from him because
they felt the senator was hurting the presidential administration. Despite his waning support,
President Eisenhower refrained from publicly reprimanding McCarthy. Apparently, the president
refused to "go into the gutter" with McCarthy by initializing a public confrontation. Doing
so would only create more chaos and generate more publicity for the senator .However, it became
apparent that McCarthy's end was near.
McCarthy's First Strike
In june 1953, J.B. Matthews was appointed as McCarthy's research director. In July, Matthews
published an article called "Reds in our churches" in the conservative American Mercury. In
it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as " the largest single group supporting the
Communist apparatus in the United States." The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well
as his boss McCarthy.
Army Investigation
McCarthy began his investigation of the Army Signal Corps Laboratory at Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey in 1953. The laboratory had employed many Jewish engineers from New York. Many of
the civilian employees there were members of the left-leaning Populist Front. In fact, Julius
Rosenberg once worked there. Many of the workers have been inspected and cleared by the government.
The army was already reexamining the entire workforce in 1953.Nevertheless, McCarthy insisted
on opening up an investigation into the matter. McCarthy eventually gave up the investigation
after months of quarreling with the army.
The Irving Peress Case
After giving up his investigation on the Army Signal Corps, McCarthy's
committee began to concentrate on Irving Peress, an Army dentist. Peress had invoked the Fifth
Amendment when filling out the army's questionnaire. Even though he was put under military
surveillance, Peress was still promoted to Major. The army eventually found the paperwork that
called for his dismissal and Peress was quickly discharged.
McCarthy then launched a campaign to criticize the army for allowing Peress to be promoted.
When interrogating General Ralph Zwicker, the senator demanded that the general should reveal
some names. Zwicker refused because he could not violate executive order. In response, McCarthy
rudely insulted the general by comparing his intelligence to that of a "five year old child."
McCarthy's treatment of the general generated a lot of hostility from the press and the American
public.
In retaliation for McCarthy's investigation, the Army accused McCarthy's aide Roy Cohn of
trying to force the Army into giving special treatment to his friend G. David Schine.
The Televised Hearings
The Senate then started hearings into the Peress matter. The investigations and hearings
between the Army and McCarthy was televised live to the public. For two months, Americans watched
on as McCarthy bully witnesses and called "point of order" to make crude remarks.
The climax
came on June 9. Representing the Army was Joseph Welch. As the Welch was questioning Cohn,
McCarthy intervened and said,
I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he
recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years
a member of an organization which was named, oh year and years ago, as the legal bulwark of
the Communist party.
Here, McCarthy was referring to Fred Fisher, a young associate in Welch's law firm. Fisher
had refused to come to the hearings because he was once affiliated with the National Lawyers
Guild. In response, Welch said he did not let Fisher come to the hearing because he did not
want to hurt "the lad" on national television. Welch then urged McCarthy to drop the issue.
Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in questioning Fisher's background. At this point Welch exclaimed,
Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left
no sense of decency?
At this point, the entire American public viewed McCarthy with disdain. On television, the
senator from Wisconsin came off as cruel, manipulative and reckless.
The Final Days
The hearings were not the only components that eroded McCarthy's credibility.
Earlier in the year, the journalist Edward R. Murrow had aired a documentary that showed how
McCarthy's charges were groundless and how he had used bullying techniques to harass individuals.
By June, the senator's Gallup Poll ratings fell from 50% to 34%.
On December 2, the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy by a margin of sixty-seven to twenty-two.
Driven by depression from being censured, Joe McCarthy resorted to alcohol, which greatly
worsen his health. On May 2, 1957, Joe McCarthy died from acute hepatitis and was buried in
Appleton, Michigan.
"... During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known? ..."
"... Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views. ..."
"... In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty. ..."
"... The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime. ..."
"... Consumer Reports, ..."
"... Ladies Home Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium ..."
During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of
America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit
so little known?
Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist
hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object
lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has
been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label
proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate
addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views.
By the peak of his power in 1953, McCarthy's allegations of "Communist subversion" had wrecked
havoc on virtually every level of government-from scores of federal employees whose careers were
ruined by unfounded charges of "treason" to decorated war heroes to highly respected statesmen. McCarthy
even characterized the entire Democratic Party as the "party of treason."
Not surprisingly, there is a long tradition of right-wing pols and pundits who see McCarthy as
a misunderstood hero. Sen. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Tea Party Republican from Texas, has already
won widespread comparisons to McCarthy for his innuendo-laced pronouncements about Democratic members
of Congress and presidential appointees such as Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. Cruz has
welcomed the criticism as "a sign that perhaps
we're doing something right." In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in
2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen
communists on its faculty.
A larger-than-life figure of enduring influence, the story of Joe McCarthy would seem to offer
little in the way of surprises. The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But
the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was
during his lifetime.
That Capitol Hill was rife with drinking and even drugging was an open secret in the 1950s, but
the "private" lives of political figures remained largely unpublicized. This protected McCarthy's
favorable reputation with the American public from the stinging stigma attached to alcoholism and
drug addiction. (There is some speculation that his opiate addiction was the result of either treatment
for "chronic pain" or treatment by sympathetic doctors to help fortify the hangover-hobbled senator
to get him through the day. But he may have had a personality disorder; a friend remarked once that
he "operates in his own moral universe.")
Yet even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable
of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
According to the country's first de-facto drug czar, Harry Anslinger, McCarthy's addiction was
enabled by the federal government. Anslinger, who served as chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
from 1930 to 1962, is credited with successfully demonizing "marijuana" as causing addiction and
insanity, murder and mayhem. More than any other political figure, Anslinger was responsible for
criminalizing opiates and its users. And his word was gospel when it came to the country's nascent
war on drugs.
In his 1961 memoir, The Murderers, Anslinger wrote about finding out, in the 1950s, that
a prominent senator (whom he left unnamed) was addicted to morphine. When confronted by Anslinger,
the politician refused to stop, even daring Anslinger to reveal his addiction, saying it would cause
irreparable harm to the "Free World." Anslinger responded to this gambit by securing the lawmaker
a steady supply of dope from a Washington, DC, pharmacy. (Morphine taken by prescription was, then
as now, legal.)
Anslinger's acquiescence was a testament to just how feared McCarthy was in his heyday. Few dared
to speak above a whisper about his evident alcoholism. "[He] went on for some time, guaranteed his
morphine because it was underwritten by the Bureau," Anslinger wrote. "On the day he died I thanked
God for relieving me of my burden."
Beltway insiders guessed that the smack-addicted senator's bullying threats and bombastic appeals
to patriotism-not to mention the fact that he had died in office-pointed to the late Joseph McCarthy.
Anslinger, however, refused to reveal the name to reporters. The story dropped out of circulation
until 1972, when a landmark study on the effects of narcotics, issued by Consumer Reports,
repeated it (still with no name attached) in a chapter on "eminent narcotic addicts."
Even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of
shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.
During the Army-McCarthy hearings, which riveted Americans to their small black-and-white television
sets in 1954, McCarthy's combustible mix of grandiosity and paranoia was on full self-destructive
display. Every so often a senator on the subcommittee would remind viewers-among whom McCarthy's
favorability ratings were falling by the week-of the real reason for the proceedings: an investigation
of charges that McCarthy had tried to blackmail the Army into giving special favors to a McCarthy
aide who had been drafted. All spring, McCarthy played to the cameras in his deep-throated baritone,
using the hearings to preach "communist infiltration" at all levels of government (including the
Army), and appealing to what he called the "real jury-the 16 million television viewers out there."
But then Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy over his attempt to blacken the reputation
of a young Welch associate, for purportedly joining a "Communist-front" lawyers organization. When
McCarthy persisted, a visibly shaken Welch famously upbraided him with these words: "Senator. You
have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
The packed hall burst into applause.
By the time the gavel fell on the hearings, McCarthy could be seen desperately haranguing an empty
chamber. Having finally gone too far, he was censured by a slim majority of his peers. Neither the
career nor the man himself ever recovered; he died three years later. McCarthy's last years were
not pretty. He was in and out of the hospital with exhaustion, broken bones, failing organs. Apt
to suddenly appear on crutches, or with his arm in a sling, he fluctuated noticeably in weight. His
official cause of death, "noninfectious, seldom fatal, hepatitis, cause unknown," is not consistent
with the acute alcoholic's liver disease that is generally thought to have killed him.
McCarthy's opiate addiction became public fodder only after Anslinger's death. A 1978 article
in, of all places, Ladies Home Journal named McCarthy as the senator in Anslinger's autobiography.
"Agents who worked under [Anslinger] claim that the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy was addicted to morphine
and regularly obtained his narcotics through a druggist near the White House, authorized by Anslinger
to fill the prescription," Maxine Cheshire wrote.
Given Cheshire's credentials as a respected Washington Post reporter, the report was
treated not as gossip but as news, and widely disseminated. United Press International (UPI) put
it starkly, "[McCarthy] was a morphine addict who had his drugs supplied by the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics for the sake of national security."
In Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium , a 1981 investigation into the history of
opium use, addiction and interdiction, Dean Latimer reported that the relationship between Anslinger
and McCarthy was more complicated and hypocritical than Anslinger had ever let on. Just when the
top drug-enforcer was supplying McCarthy with his government-approved pharmaceutical smack, the two
worked hand in hand to pin the country's burgeoning heroin trade on a Communist Chinese plot, even
though the trafficking was clearly a mafia-controlled operation. Such a fiction would have conveniently
served the federal government's relaxed policy toward organized crime. (During his 40-year reign,
FBI chief
J. Edgar Hoover never even acknowledged Cosa Nostra's very existence.)
The last mainstream mention of McCarthy's morphine addiction that this writer has uncovered dates
back to 1989, when the Philadelphia
Inquirer attacked scholarship supporting Cheshire's findings. By now, of course, anyone
who could have authoritatively confirmed the story is long dead.
McCarthy was undoubtedly a man who wrestled with more than his share of private demons that he
was only too eager to unleash on the nation. His exploitation of his country's greatest fears have
made him a polarizing figure. To most, he is a cautionary tale about the abuse of power. But to some,
he is an exemplar of the principle that, as the late Arizona senator Barry Goldwater famously said,
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Given the current climate of polarization in our
national politics, it is not surprising that McCarthy-as-myth has made a comeback.
For the recovery community, there is a special question in the story of Joe McCarthy. Whether
omitted by those who would rehabilitate him or advertised by those who would vilify him, his addiction
is viewed as a shameful "scarlet letter." For those of us who view addiction as a disease to be treated
with sympathy-and who reserve none of that emotion for McCarthy the demagogue-coming to terms with
McCarthy the addict is, to say the least, challenging.
Matt Harvey is an award-winning freelance journalist whose writing has appeared on
AnimalNY.com , Black Book, the New York
Post and the New York Press, among other publications. He lives in Manhattan.
Also historically moronic,
since China had become increasingly isolationist from the 16th century on. This is not to
say that China has not been deliberately annoying their neighbors lately, especially in the
South China Sea, however. Clearly China has been extending its influence, mostly
economically, around the world, especially in Africa, for a couple of decades now, but I do
not see this as any different from what we do in the same regions. It is certainly not
nearly as troubling as what Russia has been doing under Putin.
In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends
Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV
show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes
him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John
McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war
criminal and tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What
changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules
the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery
to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking
Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two
countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say,
and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On
Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.
In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted
against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against
Russian companies, namely oil and gas.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if
he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even
Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC,
but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will
blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to
pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone
else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I
won't.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They
are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting
and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about
Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It
was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for
Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
"... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
"... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
"... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
"... Intelligence Matters ..."
"... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
"... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential
election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different.
As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot
about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters
would have us think.
The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign
against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing
biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House,
as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he
was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before
the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence
agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future
perpetrators to the United States.
The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to
9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After
the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating
than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.
Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid
Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi,
who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time
had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.
The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar
and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted
into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver
licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with
a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of
Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego
office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.
As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans
to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al
Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn
the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on
planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped
crash it into the Pentagon.
While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to
slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had
contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations
prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the
United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."
Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers
effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed
them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.
Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate,
blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him.
Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which
Graham refused to do.
As Graham would later describe in is book
Intelligence Matters, the
FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship
with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts
of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the
public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.
Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI
carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay
any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure,
will likely never be known.
So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility.
The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency,
made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated
to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil
rights leaders.
What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some
semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with
the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the
best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so
is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on
Trump and run him out of office.
As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us,
but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."
Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found
in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions
About 9/11.
The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
21/06/2017
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian
meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up
support for war with Russia.
....................
Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the
main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a
single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases
like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions
that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.
Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions
Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the
conflict between the US and these countries
WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that
would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:
"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our
elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep
concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in
Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the
negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed
between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle
East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election
and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.
The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American
intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost
five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of
the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.
If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr.
Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.
So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.
Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email
accounts of...
Why critique this campaign against Russia
As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it
Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership
Point out the motivation
Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres
Yes the NYT and the WP
Both are working with the deep state
Once called the invisible government
Much as they have in he past
Why I like he color revolution analogy
These media titans are working with the DS
Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US
soldiers' blood to the Balts.
Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!
Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using
any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves
the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.
"As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda
from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades,
seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and
foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable
of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.
The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael
Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and
Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development
(AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.
The Times, channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful
factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted
by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime."
"... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of
US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
"... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large
we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even
if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
"... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special
services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms
of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe
you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop
of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply
Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
"Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "
Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty
toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.
Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing
Central African level of poverty) but still huge.
I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety.
I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.
We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.
When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell
you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's
how I saw it.
I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and
camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible
to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid
of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside,
in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome
of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.
Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing
70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way
that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the
United States. True, isn't it?
Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs
to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct
tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost
the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone,
but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is
this really news to you?
Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going
to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials
interfere in their political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or
attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who
is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate
counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and
other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by
and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And
in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.
Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election,
and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?
Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I
can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information.
And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall
the assassination of President Kennedy.
There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct,
and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia
in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was
it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government
and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed
in those meetings?
Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.
Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?
Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you
think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they
discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?
Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over
the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with
whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister
and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption,
a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in
jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?
Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No
one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see
things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.
We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people,
while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement
agencies try to restore order.
I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other
European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling
order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies
and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how
things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect
in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and
to teach us how we should live?
We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner,
in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will
not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.
"... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
"... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
"... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
"... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
"... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
"... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
"... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
"... Social Democrats ..."
"... Christian Democrats ..."
"... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
"... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News"
for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism
and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy
and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion
were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing
velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information
networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status
quo.
As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint
appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone
and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental
crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! –
to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this
and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our
Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").
This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly
successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid
fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries
are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible
for the spreading chaos in the West.
As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and
deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed
apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids
were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that
someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.
Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and
can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective
analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.
More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute
media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed
TV, radio, and print news.
It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly
differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream
media.
Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns
in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".
Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional
media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even
poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean
something very, very bad.
If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain
what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon
notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application.
According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism",
more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the
Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's
parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are
allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as
center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which
has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve
its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in
the 1980s.
As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called
"extremists" of the Left.
What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual?
Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly?
I do not.
Do I engage in plots to overthrow the "legitimate" government and spread chaos throughout the
EU? Do I support terrorism? I do not. While I have grave reservations about the ostensible "legitimacy"
of a number of the governments named, and have major issues with the extent to which they are in
thrall to American imperial foreign/military policy and the destructive austerity policies of the
IMF and World Bank and Big Finance, you will find no blueprints for violent revolution at my house.
I pay taxes and comply with bureaucratic governmental requirements. And as far as terrorism goes,
I would even argue that it is NATO countries' complicity in American imperial designs and hegemony
which is the source of most terrorism and is thus, in reality, "extreme" (see my recent article "Russia
Didn't Do It").
Am I armed? I am not. I have never owned a gun. My only weapon is the keyboard at which I now
write.
Do I support dangerous political organizations? I support the German party "Die Linke" (The Left),
which is the largest opposition party in Germany's Parliament, the Bundestag, and a full participant
in the national electoral process, having won around 14% of the vote in the last election. AHHH
now we're getting somewhere. "Die Linke" is accused quite regularly in the corporate and government
media of being "extreme".
And why? What positions does the party hold which are considered dangerous?
Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions
I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:
An end to weapons exports from Germany, especially into crisis regions, but more broadly, in principle.
The disbanding of NATO, which was formed as an allegedly defensive alliance against the "Warsaw
Pact" or communist military bloc led by the Soviet Union – which no longer exists. An end to German
participation in overseas military intervention (such as the current activity in Afghanistan).
A more extensive social system which builds more low-cost housing and offers greater protection
for the rights of workers and less affluent citizens – rights which were scaled back by the program
"Agenda 2010" to make the German economy more "competitive".
Active measures by government to stop the widening of the gap between rich and poor which, although
not yet as profound in Germany as in the USA, is heading in the same direction.
Higher taxes on the wealthy.
A much more independent position on the world stage for Germany and the EU, with an end to EU
servility to the USA.
Fundamental reform of the EU, with less power for Big Finance in its deliberations and economic
policies, which have created great hardship in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.
In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much
a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced
that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life
on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most
fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict
organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous
residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts
in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter
on Earth.
For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the
USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction
– parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed
all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views
I am labeled an "extremist".
I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth.
Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme
governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.
People who share dangerous ideas don't necessarily believe them.
The catastrophe wasn't what it seemed. It was an inside job, people whispered. Rome didn't have
to burn to the ground.
Nearly 2,000 years ago, after the
Great Fire of Rome leveled most of the city, Romans questioned whether the emperor Nero had ordered
his guards to start the inferno so he could rebuild Rome the way he wanted. They said the emperor
had watched the blaze from the the summit of Palatine Hill, the centermost of the seven hills of
Rome, plucking his lyre in celebration as countless people died. There's no evidence of this maniacal
lyre-playing, but historians today still debate whether Nero orchestrated the disaster.
What we do know is this: Conspiracy theories flourish when people feel vulnerable. They thrive
on paranoia. It has always been this way.
So it's understandable that, at this chaotic moment in global politics, conspiracy theories seem
to have seeped out from the edges of society and flooded into mainstream political discourse. They're
everywhere.
That's partly because of the richness of today's informational environment. In Nero's day, conspiracy
theories were local. Today, they're global. The web has made it easier than ever for people to watch
events unfold in real time. Any person with a web connection can participate in news coverage, follow
contradicting reports, sift through blurry photos, and pick out (
or publish ) bad information. The democratization of internet publishing and the ceaseless news
cycle work together to provide a never-ending deluge of raw material that feeds conspiracy theories
of all stripes.
From all over the world, likeminded people congregate around the same comforting lies, explanations
that validate their ideas. "Things seem a whole lot simpler in the world according to conspiracy
theories," writes Rob Brotherton, in his book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories.
"The prototypical conspiracy theory is an unanswered question; it assumes nothing is as it seems;
it portrays the conspirators as preternaturally competent; and as unusually evil."
But there's a difference between people talking about outlandish theories and actually believing
them to be true. "Those are two very different things," says Joseph Uscinski, a political science
professor at the University of Miami and the co-author of the book American Conspiracy Theories
. "There's a lot of elite discussion of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that anyone's
believing them any more than they did in the past. People understand what conspiracy theories are.
They can understand these theories as political signals when they don't in fact believe them."
And most people don't, Uscinski says. His data shows that belief in partisan conspiracy theories
maxes out at 25 percent-and rarely reach that point. Imagine a quadrant, he says, with Republicans
on the right and Democrats on the left. The top half of the quadrant is the people of either party
who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The bottom half is the people least likely
to believe them. Any partisan conspiracy theory will only resonate with people in one of the two
top-half squares-because to be believable, it must affirm the political worldview of a person who
is already predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories.
"You aren't going to believe in theories that denigrate your own side, and you have to have a
previous position of buying into conspiracy logic," Uscinski says.
Since conspiracy theories are often concerned with the most visible concentration of power, the
president of the United States is a frequent target. "So when a Republican is president, the accusations
are about Republicans, the wealthy, and big business; and when a Democrat is president, the accusations
focus on Democrats, communists, and socialists."
"Right now," he added, "Things are little different. Because of Donald Trump."
As it turns out, the most famous conspiracy theorist in the world is the president of the United
States. Donald Trump spent years spreading birtherism, a movement founded on the idea that his predecessor
was born outside the country and therefore ineligible for the nation's highest office. (Even when
Trump finally admitted in September that he knew Barack Obama was born in the United States,
he attempted to spark a new conspiracy .)
Now, Trump's presidency is the focus of a range of conspiracies and cover-ups-from the
very real investigation he's under to the crackpot ideas about him constantly being floated by
some of his detractors on the left. Like the implication that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are involved
in a money laundering scheme with the Russians, plus countless more theories about who's funneling
Russian money where and to whom.
"The left has lost its fucking mind, and you can quote me on that," Uscinski said. "They spent
the last eight years chastising Republicans about being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, and they have
become exactly what they swore they were not. The hypocrisy is thick and it's disgusting."
Trump's strategy in the face of all this drama has been to treat real and fake information interchangeably
and discredit any report that's unflattering to him. It's why he refers to reputable news organizations
as "fake news," and why he brags about "going around" journalists by tweeting directly to the people.
He wants to shorten the distance between the loony theories on the left and legitimate allegations
of wrongdoing against him, making them indistinguishable.
Pushing conspiracy theories helped win Trump the presidency, and he's now banking on the idea
that they'll help him as president. He's casting himself as the victim of a new conspiracy-a "witch
hunt" perpetrated by the forces that want to see him fail.
"Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories," Uscinski says. "You can win the presidency
on conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are
for losers, and now he's a winner."
What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those
who perceive themselves to be the underdog. "But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the
House, and the White House, you can't pull that," Uscinski says. "Just like how Hillary Clinton can't,
in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Donald Trump may be the most famous conspiracy theorist in America, but a close second is the
Infowars talk-radio personality Alex Jones, who has made a name for himself spewing reprehensible
theories. He claimed the
Sandy
Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax. He says 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were
carried out by the U.S. government. Jones has an online store where he peddles products like iodine
to people prepping for the apocalypse.
Jones has long been a controversial figure, but not enormously well known. That's changing. Jones
was a vocal supporter of Trump, who has in turn praised Jones. "Your reputation is amazing,"
Trump told him in an Infowars appearance in 2015. "I will not let you down." Jones has claimed
he is opening a Washington Bureau and considering applying for White House press credentials.
The latest Jones drama is a three-parter (so far): First, the NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly
announced
she had interviewed Jones, and that NBC would air the segment on Sunday, June 18. Next came the backlash:
People disgusted by Jones blasted Kelly and NBC, saying a man whose lies had tortured the families
of murdered children should never be given such a prominent platform. Even Jones joined the fracas,
saying he'd been treated unfairly in the interview. Finally, on Thursday night, Jones claimed he
had secretly recorded the interview, and would release it in full. (So far, he has released what
seems to be audio from a phone conversation with Kelly that took place before the interview.)
Kelly has defended her decision to do the interview in the first place by describing Jones's popularity:
"How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president
of the United States and an audience of millions?" The public interest in questioning a person like
Jones, she argues, eclipses any worries about normalizing his outlandish views. The questions are
arguably more valuable than the answers.
Many journalists agree with Kelly's reasoning. But it's also true, scholars say, that giving a
platform to conspiracy theorists has measurable harmful effects on society. In 1995, a group of Stanford
University psychologists interviewed people either right before or right after they'd viewed Oliver
Stone's 1991 film JFK , which was full of conspiracy theories. Brotherton, who describes the
findings in Suspicious Minds, says people leaving the movie described themselves as less likely
to vote in an upcoming election and less likely to volunteer or donate to a political campaign, compared
with those walking in. "Merely watching the movie eroded, at least temporarily, a little of the viewer's
sense of civic engagement," Brotherton writes.
There are other examples of real-world consequences of giving platforms to conspiracy theorists,
too. The conspiracy theory known as
Pizzagate , which rose to prominence across websites like 4chan and niche conservative blogs,
resulted in a man firing a weapon in a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor.
The debate over Kelly's interview comes on the heels of another high-profile conspiracy theory
that sent shockwaves through conservative media circles. At the center of that scandal was the TV
host Sean Hannity
pushing a conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a Democratic National Committee staff
member and an explosive Fox News report about the murder that was
eventually retracted.
* * *
There's a popular science-fiction podcast, Welcome to Night Vale , developed around the
idea of life in a desert town where all conspiracy theories are true. It was first released in June
2012, the summer before a U.S. presidential election, at a moment when Trump was test-driving a new
anti-Obama conspiracy. "I wonder when we will be able to see @BarackObama's college and law school
applications and transcripts," he
tweeted
the day Night Vale launched. "Why the long wait?"
Joseph Fink, who co-created the podcast, says conspiracy theories today are continuing to function
the way they always have. Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult stories. They provide
a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem ordered. "Especially if it's ordered against
you," he says. "Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even more comforting."
"That said, more extreme conspiracy theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously
dangerous," Fink adds. "Conspiracy theories act in a similar way as religious stories: they give
you an explanation and structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening
of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same power it has to move people
also is easily turned into a power to move people against other people."
Look for the last awakening of this sort in the United States, and you'll find a sea of similarities-of
course, as conspiracy theories tell us, it's easy to find connections when you go looking for them.
Several scholars-people who focus on real conspiracies and people who study conspiracy theories-say
the paranoia surrounding the Trump presidency evokes the tumult surrounding the Vietnam War. It's
not that conspiracy theories weren't, at times, rampant before that. In the 1940s and 1950s, McCarthyism
and the trial of Alger Hiss brought with them a surreal spate of hoaxes and misinformation. But it
was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that set off a "general sense of suspicion" that
would permeate the culture for some time, says Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas:
A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination.
"Part of that was, what occurred almost immediately after the assassination, in the years afterward,
was Vietnam," Thompson said, "And over time, a complete loss of confidence in what ever the government
was saying about Vietnam. That was not just from the presidency, that was from the government itself."
This was also a period in which some of the most dramatic ideas that had been disparaged as conspiracy
theories turned out to be true. "I am not a crook," Nixon had insisted. Less than a year later, he
resigned. Nixon and Trump are compared not infrequently. Not all presidents are so thin-skinned and
antagonistic to the press. Jennifer Senior, reviewing a recent Nixon biography,
wrote that "the similarities between Nixon and Trump leap off the page like crickets." Nixon
may have been increasingly paranoid in the final months of his presidency, but he didn't have access
to the technology that Trump uses to showcase his conspiracy mindedness.
"With real conspiracy theorists, there's a kind of-how to put it-almost a dialectic operative,"
Thompson says. "Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to
hold your audience."
I tell Thompson the idea Uscinski had shared, about how a person can win the presidency on conspiracy
theories, but how they don't work so well once you're president. He seems to agree. "In a campaign,
what you're trying to do is affect people's opinions that will be harvested on one day," he said.
"But governing doesn't have to do with people's opinions. It has to do with facts. That's the real
difference."
When the facts are disputed, of course, you do the best you can with the evidence you can find.
Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination
, has spent years thinking about all this. When I bring up the enormity of unknown unknowns in
people's understanding of history, Thompson quotes the writer Geoffrey O'Brien: Black Deutschland
by Darryl Pinckney.
*
"And that's the trouble," Thompson says. "What may appear as conspiracy theory at one point turns
out to be truth at another."
I ask Thompson how sure he is about the official explanation of the JFK assassination, that there
was one gunman who fired on the president's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository.
Thompson believes, based on controversial acoustic evidence, that on November 22, 1963, a shot
was fired from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza-not just from the depository. "The acoustics give
us a kind of template for how the event occurred-these two flurries of shots, separated by about
six seconds." (Thompson later clarified that he believes the flurries of shots were 4.6 seconds apart.)
He says it was two shots in the second flurry that killed Kennedy.
*
*
Thompson pauses.
"Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?"
He laughs.
"After all these years? What do you think?"
* New York Review of Books writer Geoffrey O'Brien, who
first wrote the line in
his review of the Darryl Pinckney novel Black Deutschland.
** Thompson clarified
after publication that he believes the flurries of shots in the Kennedy assassination were 4.6 seconds
apart, not six seconds apart. He believes Kennedy was killed by two shots in the second flurry, not
by the two flurries of shots.
"... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
"... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
"... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.
..."
"... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger
on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to
someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
"... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
"... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites
are always blaming the Jews. ..."
"... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden
in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world."
He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold
War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love
for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin
public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has "
no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a
dictator , a
war criminal and
tyrant .
"You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.
"Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly,
"There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."
In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants
to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would
say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig
leaf.
Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the
foreign policy front.
STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.
PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously
influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not
a lie.
They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his
finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting
blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.
Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.
PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like
antisemites are always blaming the Jews.
The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph
Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old
world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started
the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.
No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious
exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something which is
frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at a cost of
about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money into
them.
The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.
This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an
adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope
that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners.
The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR),
100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.
They're quite the Gordian Tits!
Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal
dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention
that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared
to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental
interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?
So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is
its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at
any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or
the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including
those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as
a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only
value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free
public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.
Much of the left has gone completely bonkers
on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the
Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia. Katha Pollitt's legitimate animosity toward Trump
because of his attitude toward women has unfortunately clouded her judgment vis-à-vis Russia.
However, there is a substantial segment of the left that wants to see better relations with
Russia and is dismayed and disheartened by the relentless hyping of the alleged Russian hacking,
Trump's ties with Russia, etc. The neocons are laughing all the way to a military confrontation
with Russia. Bravo to Victor Navasky and Stephen F. Cohen for continuing to speak truth to
hysteria. And bravo to
The Nation
for doing the same in its editorials.
"... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are
going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim
vindication. ..."
"... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
"... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key
player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent,
unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
"... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable
mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have
been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often,
an outright, active traitor. ..."
The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come
and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news);
his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still
green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of
ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise -
learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding
with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.
That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang
and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters,
all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang
ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering
exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking
into Russian ties from many angles.
I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper
as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus
and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle
with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you
are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and
claim vindication.
Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and
the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned,
burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through,
in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists
of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary
citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.
And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to
prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural
rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because
the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in
the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.
I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn
for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention
those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel -
even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way
back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked
up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in
the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"
Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting
fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol,"
because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.
Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking
of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was
a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them
inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.
Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and
demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs"
that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or,
more and more often, an outright, active traitor.
Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there
is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now,
keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out
the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake.
You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.
Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would
doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world":
the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special
arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy
- in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors
in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows
what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?
We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across
a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful
use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look
there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out
of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing
on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident
in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never
really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness
of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption
was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)
Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without
going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players
in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you
really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as
their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy
to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.
But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically
inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the
rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological
outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now
live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and
corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation
of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote
suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters
- had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.
Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and
aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who
persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful
in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought
Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has
been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands
of espionage.
But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted
in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age
where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously
a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still
live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So
of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line
every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims,
immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for
the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with
Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives
for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.
So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away
again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with
his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.
Virtually every current headline unequivocally shows how US Empire and its Ministry of Propaganda
are lying to the American people. Those in power have been so exposed by alt-media in 2016 that they
are growing more desperate by the day. Right now their biggest lie is blaming Putin and Russia for
being behind everything gone wrong in the world according to the Obama-Clinton-Bush-CIA-Rothschild
crime cabal. The latest claims assert that
Putin's hackers overturned the presidential election results in favor of Donald Trump and this
whopper is currently being pushed as the flimsiest, last gasp excuse to spearhead its hollow "fake
news" crusade in order to both outlaw the truth and
derail Trump's
January 20 th inauguration.
Longtime State Department veteran psychiatrist
Steve Pieczenik , CIA/NSA whistleblower
William Binney, CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern, and former UK ambassador
Craig Murray have all stated that there is zero evidence showing that the Russians "hacked" emails
or interfered with the election outcome in any way.
Credible former CIA officers emphatically state that the emails were leaked, not hacked and that
Putin had nothing to do with it. The 17 US intelligence agencies remain conflicted with the verdict
still out, unable to even arrive at a consensus, despite the FBI's latest cave-in to pressures to
feebly present a belated united front against Russia. Flip flopper
Comey's at it again. Up until a day or so ago, the FBI maintained that there was not enough evidence
to conclude the Russians hacked into DNC records or emails. The Clintons, Obama and their "intelligence"
minions are fast growing irrelevant and impotent as the yearend days count down. What's perfectly
clear is the CIA/MSM liars are acting on orders from the Clinton et al cartel deceitfully politicizing
this meme because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary lost her "anointed" election. The feds'
unending war agenda may soon be collapsing.
Before rushing to lynch mob judgment demonizing Putin once again, an important reminder worth
noting is the
historic track record of the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes and the CIA is that they lie all the
time, both pathologically and professionally as full blown certifiable
psychopaths . They all played a major part in creating and continuing to back
the terrorists al Qaeda, al Nusra and
ISIS in the Middle East and beyond. With perhaps the exception of the
Saul Alinsky -Bill Ayers, "
terrorist-inspired " community organizer and then Illinois
state senator Obama, it's worth mentioning that they all bear guilt in murdering 3000 American
citizens on
9/11 and then shamelessly promoting the boldface lie that Saddam Hussein had
WMD's and
direct links to terrorists. But let's not leave out Pinocchio-nosed Barrack who promised to be the
most open and transparent president in US history and then proceeded to be the
most secretive , least transparent, and perhaps most incompetent president in US history. But
then given the mission to
destroy America from within by the ruling elite that groomed and launched his meteoric rise,
his puppet masters no doubt are very pleased with his record. And as far as the Central Intelligence
Agency goes, as the elite's
private mercenary army , from its very get-go the
CIA's very purpose and everyday business have always been made of
lies and
propaganda .
Instead of blindly blaming the Russians, far more credible sources have posited that at least
one DNC insider –
Seth
Rich – leaked documents and then likely paid for it with his murdered life. Additionally, if
you believe Steve Piecnezik, intelligence operatives launched a soft anti-Clinton counter-coup handing
over the thousands of Clinton-Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. And now we're even learning that US
Homeland Security has been trying to hack into the Georgia state election apparatus at least
ten times. So all these alleged hacks and leaks seem to surfacing internally from sources within
the United States, mostly from operatives working either directly inside the government or political
apparatchik.
Another relevant point worth raising is the indisputable fact that the US government is the most
notoriously guilty entity in the world for constantly
meddling and interfering in other sovereign nations' internal elections and affairs, engaging
in crime after crime
assassinating
foreign leaders , and executing dozens of coups overthrowing sovereign governments. And let's
face it, all the major players on the global stage are guilty of spying on one another, particularly
in cyber-espionage
, again with the US the main culprit. So this whole notion of using the blame game to falsely
accuse other countries of the very same hideous aggressions that Washington is most guilty perpetrating
for well over a century is extremely hypocritical in the least and downright diabolical to the max.
Yet for centuries now this kind of duplicity and hubris is exactly how
American exceptionalism has criminally operated around the globe with total impunity.
The "blame the Russian" game is an old cold war propaganda tactic from way back. History just
keeps repeating itself because the powers-that-shouldn't-be exploit and count on Americans having
a short attention span. Those who witnessed or pay attention to history can recall the cold war era
of the early 1950's and the Red Scare of
McCarthyism
when many people's lives were ruined by dishonestly branding them as so-called communists and
communist sympathizers. Deep state USA is at it once again, unjustly singling out and punishing those
who speak the truth online by again falsely accusing them of being agents of Russian propaganda.
Blacklisting alt-media sites that legitimately report accurate accounts of news events and world
developments by again falsely accusing them as "fake news" sources when the corporate media liars
themselves are infamously guilty of fake news propaganda is just more of the same bogus modus operandi
that the government and mainstream media have been redeploying indefinitely for decades.
Project Mockingbird flourished throughout the cold war from the 1950's right into the 1970's
and beyond when the CIA influenced if not controlled all the biggest news outlets (25 newspapers
and wire agencies) using them to spread Washington's own cold war propaganda. This sinister collusion
between the feds and the press resulted in the imperialistic division of two Asian ethnicities –
the
Koreans and
Vietnamese
people each split into two enemy nations fighting two costly wars killing up to over 7 million
Asians (not to mention 95,000 American soldiers). And when the Senate Church Committee finally exposed
Mockingbird, in 1976 then CIA director George Bush senior was forced to proclaim on paper at least
its "official" end. But subsequent planting of
disinformation
in the foreign press that by design would then spread to the US was yet another covert means
by which the deceitful CIA continued its propaganda control over both US and foreign news markets.
This unholy nexus has also persisted right up till today through such common ties as the all-powerful
Council on Foreign Relations. For many decades the CFR strategically courts and
recruits prominent members from mainstream media as well as the
entertainment industry for the exact same PR purpose of using them to promote deep state propaganda
and collude in corrupt cover-ups to willfully deceive the American public. Then in recent years the
corporatized merging of government and mass media utilizing US military, CIA and FBI
liaisons in Hollywood has only consolidated power and media control into fewer and fewer hands,
with
6 oligarchs in control of the 6 largest mega media giants controlling the outflow of over 90%
of today's news. Virtually every TV show and film out of Hollywood now is pure deep state propaganda
serving for a full century as the best recruitment venue for brainwashing the next generation of
GI's dying on foreign soil battlefields. Hence, what's emerged today is a fascist government
cabal maintaining illegitimate control and authority through false propaganda delivered 24/7 by deep
state surrogate the mainstream media.
But during this US presidential election year, largely due to WikiLeaks, social media and alternative
and independent news, citizens of the world have discovered how corrosively evil in its
criminality
this existing crime cabal is, personified by the Clintons, Obama, and their minions in Washington,
Wall Street and the corporate media. Over the last couple months the Clinton-Podesta connection has
been directly tied to a global child sex trafficking ring operating from the "
life insurance " laptop of Hillary's closest, 20-year aide-
Saudi operative Huma Abedin's husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. But the pedophilia
network has more recently expanded to include an infamous block of sinister pizza parlors and front
offices in upscale Northwest Washington operating eerily close to the White House (perhaps even closer
through
DC's network of underground tunnels). Enter #Pizzagate .
And through thousands of internet sleuths working together online 24/7, the crumbling, gaping
cracks of this crime cabal wall have been exposed like never before, threatening to bring down the
most powerful Luciferian worshipping
pedophiles at the top of this planet's demonic food chain. And this raw naked exposure of the
diabolical matrix has the guilty party – the Obamas, Bushes, and Clintons panicking and resorting
to extreme desperate measures to hide and conceal the filthy truth of who and what they are. Hence,
in this age of deception and culture of evil, we are now living in a new era of McCarthyism frantically
unleashed to justify their latest attack campaign on steroids to censor and ban all
blacklisted alternative media news sites that provide much needed counterbalancing truth to the
official false narrative lies. The aim here is to eliminate and silence all truth tellers so that
the evildoers – as naked and exposed as they already are, can attempt to hold onto their waning power,
slipping fast now from their control.
By deep state egregiously accusing alt-news of being "agents of
Russian propaganda ," it intends to shut down America's First Amendment right to a free press
– the alternative news, which regularly exposes NSM and gov.corps' propaganda lies. The totalitarian
agenda now being rushed through prior to Trump becoming president has already passed "
anti-Russian propaganda " bills in both chambers of
Congress aimed at banning over 200 targeted alt-news sites on their bogus blacklists. Additionally,
the EU has threatened further tyrannical censorship if co-opted internet ponds Facebook, Google,
Twitter, Microsoft, and Reddit don't eliminate the so-called "fake news" from its social media and
search engines. In effect, a final power grab is being played out right now attempting to usurp,
control and silence the last voice of honest and accurate news accounting of what goes on in this
world. But the crime cabal will fail as the world knows too much already.
Since 9/11 those who question authority refusing to believe the deep state lies have been customarily
discarded as "
conspiracy nuts ." Though for decades this strategy was quite effective, it's now wearing thin
as more people every day are beginning to realize the truth about the previously concealed criminality
endlessly committed by DC puppets and their masters. As a result, deep state's agenda has been to
increasingly criminalize dissidents as potential
homegrown terrorists and radicalized enemies of the state. What we're currently witnessing is
the systematic targeting of both
dissenting individuals and
alternative news organizations as "dangerously" unwanted truth tellers posing the single largest
threat to the crime cabal's continued power and control.
And with only a few remaining weeks, for that reason alone Obama and the Clintons are moving at
breakneck speed to neutralize opposing forces bent on seeking justice by sending them to rot in prison.
Since Soros'
post-election riots have fizzled, Stein's
recount failed and stealing the presidency through pro-Hillary
death threats against Trump electoral voters have one by one fallen short of overturning the
election, silencing alt-news and igniting a war against Russia are their last, "best shot" ploys
that would manufacture the needed national crisis to prevent Trump from assuming office next month.
Who knows? In the few days prior to January 20 th , a false flag perpetrated by Washington
neo-crazies as a last gasp effort to blame Russia "justifying" war against the nuclear power may
still be up their pathetic evil sleeve. That's how desperate these despots are, terrified their
pedo-crimes will soon be their ruin.
In the meantime, yet another draconian law
HR 4919 was just passed in the House. Using the benignly logical rationale of tracking lost victims
suffering from autism or dementia, deep state is now pushing for RFID chips to be implanted in all
people diagnosed with autism and dementia. Similar past measures have authorized the government to
round up
the homeless or those afflicted with
respiratory ailments during the Ebola scare. Operating under the auspices of the
Center for Disease Control (CDC), in mid-August, the CDC proposed to grant itself the unlimited
unconstitutional power to round up and detain citizens en masse without reason or due process, kind
of like the medical bookend to the
2013 FDAA that also obliterates citizens' legal rights and civil liberties. The feds are becoming
increasingly over-the- top in their totalitarian oppression, knowing that for good reason more people
are opposing
mandatory vaccinations for both children and adults as well as proposed mandatory microchips.
Recall that a couple years ago NBC was predicting that next year every American would be
micro chipped .
Like the regretful German pastor
Martin Niemoller's
famous quote decrying each group targeted and taken away by the Nazis without his speaking out, after
the communists, socialists, trade unionists and the Jews, by the time they came for him it was too
late. How far will the government go with its growing hit list of expendable throwaways? What's to
stop the deep state from making microchips mandatory for anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder?
Or the entire world population for that matter?
The insane
DSM-5 has recently expanded the number of mental illnesses into absurdity, making sure to include
practically anyone and everyone. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual has become the official tool and
vehicle by which the government is moving to criminalize abnormality. This slippery slope may soon
include every human on the planet.
As a former diagnostic clinician, I can tell you that the criteria by which people can be diagnosed
with a
dangerous label from a vast array is extremely arbitrary and subjective. There's nothing scientific
or foolproof about it. Mislabeling citizens who may pose "trouble or a threat" to the authoritarian
state is wide open for overreaching, widespread abuse as the convenient false pretense for microchipping
and controlling a growing segment of "undesirables" within the population. Branding any individual
who does not trust authority figures with
"Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or anyone who appears "overly" health conscious and selective
about what they eat as "suffering" from
orthorexia nervosa could simply be deep state's way of branding us all with certifiable labels.
Deep state has co-opted the psychiatric profession which is largely owned and controlled by Big Pharma,
using its Diagnostic Statistical Manual's unlimited mental disorders as yet another weapon of mass
destruction playbook for diabolical population control purposes.
In recent years MSM has clearly become Washington's
ministry of propaganda . And adding insult to injury, Congress is busily passing bills designed
to outlaw the real truth, so as to empower its propaganda ministry to become its
"truth" ministry . We are living the Orwellian nightmare come true, as "
useless eating " victims of a fascist
totalitarian oligarchic police state bent on perpetrating
democide as well as
human genocide as part of its demonic
eugenics plan to drastically reduce the world pop. from 7.4 billion to anywhere from a half to
one billion depending on which
invasively surveilled and controlled population in human history by a centralized tyrannical
government controlling a centralized financial
debtor-slave system . Deep state and corporate media together engage in covert concealment of
secret, heinously deplorable brutality protecting the elite's systemic criminality perpetrated we
now know on a massive colossal scale.
A century ago the ruling elite known as the
internationalists envisioned a one world government. Now that same ruling elite controlled by
the same
tainted bloodlines are called globalists and they're rushing to suppress the truth on their way
to bringing on the perfect storm that will usher in the violent tyranny of their global governance.
Outside of technology that enables increasing power and control, little has otherwise changed over
the course of the last century. That said, never before have more citizens of the world become aware
of the treasonous and demonic crimes committed by those psychopaths in power. Before closing a final
reminder warrants stating. Regardless of the figurehead occupying the White House, the same demonic
power elite is still holding power over this earth. And the battle for truth, justice, and our very
lives will continue after January 20 th . The doomsday clock that's been ticking under
the Bush-Clinton-Obama cabal is only ticking shorter now and our struggle is hardly over.
Joachim Hagopian [ send him mail ] is a West Point graduate
and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled
"Don't Let The
Bastards Getcha Down." It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership
and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master's degree in Clinical Psychology
and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. In
recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site
is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.com
.
A post via
The Anti Media
written by
Darius
Shahtahmasebi
, exposes what many following the Syria "civil war" narrative
have known for some time now that no civil war is really taking place, but rather
a US-Saudi regime change invasion against the Assad government.
The proxy army being used to force an Assad regime change is the Islamic State
(ISIS).
The following video, and accompanying post, shows the US military
providing ISIS jihadists with a safe escape form the Syrian city of Raqqa.
Needless to say it would have been drop dead simple to have bombed the convoy of
ISIS jihadists as seen in the video, but this was not the goal. The goal was safe
passage out of Raqqa.
Where are the ISIS fighters escaping to?
We venture to guess that these ISIS fighters are being sent, by US and Saudi
military commanders, to territory under the control of the legally recognized
government of Syria, where they will continue to fight against Assad.
With
numerous distractions
unfolding on the newly released reality TV show that
is "Keeping Up with the Trump Administration," it may surprise readers to learn
that the U.S. is using the terror group ISIS as a pawn in its depraved foreign
policy.
Video footage
obtained
by
Al-Masdar
appears to show convoys of ISIS fighters
fleeing the Syrian city of Raqqa untouched by the U.S. military, which is
currently bombing that exact location. As
Al-Masdar
notes, despite
having Kurdish and American drones hovering around the city of Raqqa, U.S.
bombs are nowhere to be seen as hundreds of fighters pass safely. The release
of this footage comes on the heels of accusations from both
Russia
and
Iran
that the U.S. is colluding with ISIS to allow the group's safe passage
into areas controlled by the Syrian government.
Iran claims to have direct proof but thus far has not released it. Even if
Russia and Iran don't have any secret documents that directly expose this
collusion, the fact remains that
we don't necessarily need them
.
After all, this is exactly how ISIS grew exponentially in Syria in the first
instance – as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy strategy. In 2012, a
classified Defense Intelligence Agency report predicted the rise of ISIS,
something actively encouraged by the U.S. establishment. The report
stated
:
"If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is
exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate
the Syrian regime."
Further,
leaked audio
of former Secretary of State John Kerry shows he knew ISIS was
gaining momentum in Syria, and that in turn, the U.S. hoped this would bring
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table.
In recent times, the safe passage of ISIS fighters to areas under the
control of the Syrian government has been an unspoken but official strategy and
has been the reality on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
Late last year,
Anti-Media
reported
on an
anonymous military-diplomatic official's claims that the United States was
allowing safe passage to Syria for ISIS fighters exiting Mosul, Iraq – even
though the U.S. was supposedly waging an offensive to defeat ISIS in the area.
As we noted, acknowledging the admittedly undesirable, questionable nature of
the anonymous source:
"
An anonymous source claiming to a Russian newspaper something as
conspiratorial as the U.S. directly aiding ISIS militants may seem a bit
dubious, but since the offensive was launched on Monday of this week
,
this has been the reality on the ground
.
Not long after, ISIS launched an offensive into a very strategic area in
Syria called Deir ez-Zor, battling through Syrian government defenses. The most
horrifying part of this offensive was the fact that, as
noted
by the
Guardian
, the ISIS fighters who successfully broke through
government defense lines in Syria were
"primarily reinforcements coming over
the border from Iraq's Anbar province."
Deir ez-Zor is not outside the U.S. military's strike range capacity. This
is the same city that was attacked by the American-led coalition in September
of last year – an attack
that targeted
Syrian troops for over an hour, paving the way for a timely ISIS offensive. Yet
when it comes to hundreds of reinforcements raging through the Iraqi border
into Syria, the U.S. military is on a brief vacation.
We were told Raqqa was to be ISIS' last stronghold in Syria, but this is
clearly not true. In order for the U.S. to ultimately put pressure on the
Syrian government, the real prize is not Raqqa but a combination of two very
strategic locations that are very heavily interlinked.
"There, a complex confrontation is unfolding, with far more geopolitical
import and risk. Daesh [ISIS] is expected to make its last stand not in Raqqa
but in an area that encompasses the borders with Iraq and Jordan and much of
Syria's modest oil reserves, making it important in stabilising Syria and
influencing its neighbouring countries.
"Whoever lays claim to the sparsely populated area in this 21st-century
version of the Great Game not only will take credit for seizing what is likely
to be Daesh's last patch of a territorial caliphate in Syria, but also will
play an important role in determining Syria's future and the post-war dynamics
of the region."
And this is ultimately the problem for the U.S.-led coalition of anti-Assad
(and anti-Iranian) nations. The behind-closed-doors official rationale for
targeting Syria's government for regime change was to undermine Iranian
influence in the region,
according
to Hillary Clinton's email archive. Countries such as Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the other Gulf States have
long feared
that a fully dominated Shia-led bloc of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon could completely overthrow the regional balance of power. They have
opposed such a development at all costs.
As
Gulf News
explains, the Iranians are in the process of fully
implementing this Shia bridge, known as the "Shia Crescent":
"The contested area also includes desert regions farther south with
several border crossings, among them the critical highway connecting Damascus
and Baghdad - coveted by Iran as a land route to Lebanon and its ally, the
Hezbollah militia."
This is why the U.S. military has set up a training base at the Aal-Tanf
border crossing. If the Syrian government were to retake the area and open it
up under its control, they would be
able to directly link Iran
to Syria and the rest of its allies, including
Iraq and Lebanon.
This is also why the U.S. military has been
engaging in illegal acts of aggression
against Iranian-backed militias
operating in the area - to defend this position.
Further, the Syrian government's outpost in Deir ez-Zor is
isolated
, hence why these two offensives are running in tandem. They both
rely on the liberation of the other to have any real value to the Syrian
government and its Russian and Iranian allies.
As fascinating as the Comey testimony spectacle has been (don't forget to
tune in for tomorrow's scandal of anonymous leaks and misspelled tweets), the
real scandal lies in the fact that the U.S. is now
openly
siding with ISIS
while allowing the terrorists safe passage into parts of
Syria so that these extremists can battle
a secular government
. The U.S.
is moments away from an all-out confrontation with Iran (and
Russia
, a nuclear power).
Don't expect the corporate media to report on these damning facts anytime
soon, as the public continues to sleepwalk into a global powder keg of deceit,
death, and destruction.
"... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
"... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
"... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
"... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
"... Undiscovered Self ..."
"... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
"... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper who oversaw a "trust us" report,
but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as David Marks describes.
Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's willingness to consider friendship
and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional debate.
For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover
from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally, into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal
enemy.
James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example of how this antagonism toward
Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in a June
7 speech to the Australian National Press Club.
"The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as
the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's
borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed
the renewed arms race and resulting tensions on the Russians:
"The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic forces - notably their submarine
and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite
their economic challenges - with only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active
violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."
That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race
– leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its
military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.
A Shrill Voice
Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present,
still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been
at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.
Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, for decades. His entire
attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores the context of the Russians actions.
Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president in 1996.
Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted the first known software attack
on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel – unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges.
U.S. intelligence also has a long record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer
age.
But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers and American political operatives
were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian
oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.
Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992 has come from one of two domains:
the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose
the last ten presidents of the U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight
into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."
With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing, which has been dominated by
people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks, and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought
Clapper from Air Force intelligence into the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and
an oil company executive.
Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, both Republican and
Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment
banks. And the U.S. intelligence community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who
came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.
Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence contractors have a powerful
influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers
drift between intelligence contractors and government.
It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector to do its bidding. Considering
the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil
and gas – as well as to the military and intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary
of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.
Classic Projection
Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S. government exemplifies classic
projection of the highest order.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data, while ignoring the information that
cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense
of the greatness of the United States. His ethics become situational.
As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency's massive gathering
of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.
Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, "I responded
in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."
Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate
fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really,
in my view compared to what we're confronting now."
Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth
and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot who thinks he knows best what's good for America,
a dangerous creature that the U.S. government
seems to produce in quantity.
In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw the key Jan. 6 report on alleged
Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much public evidence, he released
a report that amounted
to "trust us."
Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did
acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported.
So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing
not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to
their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the
illness they denounce.
In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the state of the human mind and how
it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like
the neurotic, sees his shadow in his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty
to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate the outward eye and prevent
it from looking at the individual life within.
"We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split,
symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization and man himself, if
the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"
Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.
David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including
Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.
mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm
Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes obvious. One does not need the authority
of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded
to ignore the reality all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to clear a
space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness, only those things one's conditioning
permits can be seen.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am
If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe, come here and read this, they
are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change for the better or they are still smart enough to understand
it and are laughing all the way to the temporary bank.
If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line with the immutable Universal laws
of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one, at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of
the lesson that one just isn't learning at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation
to continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary wake-up call in all
it's required force.
Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep down inside, that we are all
equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions, we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve
and it would behoove us to accept our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am
These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed Kennedy, but they weren't.
They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation.
I guess that Hoover had so much dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous
menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads" of these traitorous agencies
their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy
photos, that these maniacs actually practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what
kind of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring us to the brink of nuclear
war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage
and destroy his reputation unless he commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding
"American" values. They are sick control freaks.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm
If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the early 21st Century, then the works
of historians should be filed under non-fiction.
The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper to give evidence after his
blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee. The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative
body? What a crock of shit!! Who was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm
then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction
Ooops: That should be "under fiction."
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm
And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or least untruthful" manner.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am
I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall for? It really shows his utter
arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness
of believing there is "equal justice for all" in the USA.
Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am
Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's august Senate by British MP George
Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005, on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
His absolutely devastating verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't
seen it online.
Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm
In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions –
When I posted this on Facebook, a "liberal" friend made several angy comments about EVIL Russia and then accused me of being
a traitor for "defending a sworn enemy of our country."
In today's climate that kind of charge is not trivial. Watch out when you share it!
Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send a pile of copies to Clapper. That
guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably
"clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz he's been imbibing.
Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm
I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear unhinged, deranged, absolutely
stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the
only thing in which the US leads the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud.
Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia, without a single word of criticism
from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert
was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had
to say. Too few people realise how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am
G'Day Gary,
I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night, depending on your region.
Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
airdates.tv at last resort in the future
Hoota Thunk.
Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.
john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am
Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests. The removal of Trump is essential
to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies
and make believe. They all wanted Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she
won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran bu now. War makes money so any one
who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has to be got rid of.
Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development of this Russiagate fiasco, as former
head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right
that the whole bunch of the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of days ago
about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's what passes for entertainment nowadays.
Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily
Star, also The Guardian, and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when human development
was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually it is regressing.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am
Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks he's a god.
Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am
So far he seems to be getting away with it.
Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm
"Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee has raised the anti-Russian
hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US political police denounced supposed Russian interference in
the US elections as a dire threat to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work
on behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the principal enemy of the United
States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions
funneled into the US elections by Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people
.
the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most powerful sections of the military-intelligence
apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the
foreign policy offensive against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since the
2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign are particularly incensed that Russian
intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation.
They want to see Assad in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred of Putin
indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and
the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:
Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote totals were altered. No ballots
were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful
information was supplied anonymously to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee
had worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall Street audiences and reassured
them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of the big financial interests
Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus
and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation,
wage cutting and austerity that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality
[The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as
insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."
Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence
apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure garbage
Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter who p!ssed off Israel firsters.
Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.
G² , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies are so chaotic?
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered
outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer
was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or
a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which checks and balances are implemented
to reign in the retired general?
Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am
Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?
Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying for the US to control the universe
Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript and printed it out.
In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you that my dashboard warning
light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about
the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians
were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians, who (are) typically, ALMOST
GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
So we were concerned."
(Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing phrase.)
Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the Russians did it' meme.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am
That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct group of people Chuck Todd
would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth in the grand American tradition.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am
no way to bold that statement
There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At the end type "/strong" inside
but not the quotation marks shown in this example.
Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am
Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am
The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things. The beast they feed is the same
beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars.
If you recall last summer the DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the 2001
unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department so far this 21st Century that
no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending
this nations well earned capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling
and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.
"Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants who may have been looking into
the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am
This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like it, like building #7. Nice of
you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.
When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who could answer them. Yet, questioning
any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these
days over things such as assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you being
a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am
Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question: Why didn't that high rise
tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more
intense? It wasn't just a localised burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is
not more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely crack than steel girders will
melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in on this one.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm
My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel. The smoke will get you before the
fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.
Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and if a proper investigation were
conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone with half a brain.
If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because the guy is a physicist/mathematician
who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking
at it. He couldn't believe what he found.
Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse.
It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos.
Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no
reason."
And:
"Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side, hundreds
of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise
it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."
The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation".
Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention of it to my wife, commenting
to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist how many others had the same thought, as you and I.
Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am
Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website, but I had not seen that video
with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that production never shown on American television? Why was NIST
so remiss in its analysis, as the narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never
be admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in 50 years when all the blame can
be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never
changes.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am
Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to motives and means of the WTC collapse.
The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel
fire exceeding their melting point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.
Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. When a single
failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design.
When those are also much weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This is called
"progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft fuel would soon cause the entire floor
to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.
Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral failure across the whole floor
would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload
all columns below that, causing the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was
uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.
Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner "bearing walls." When part
of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing
structure are asymmetrical and it falls partly to the sides.
As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London fire), it is the concrete that
provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength
against bending loads (wind and earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its
curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure survives a fire sufficient
to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive failure.
Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.
But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not permitted in the US or under the
International Building Code so far as I know. It should have had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers
to suppress non-petroleum fires, non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent"
fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction, maintenance, and enforcement
practices, if not in the building code itself.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am
It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes of the WTC fire, and that
Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do
not know what happened there.
I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would have prepared a distinct method
of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked
other structures with the aircraft. Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to
wait until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any buildings did not correspond
to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.
So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and I have seen no convincing photos
or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent
with the aircraft-only model.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am
I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved in the aircraft attack. But
without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating the sources of the aircraft attack.
We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was grown by US warmongers attacking
the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more
to be learned about US/KSA/Israel involvement that we may hope will be exposed.
backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might have bought (maybe) what you
just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse
initiation stage is because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the
fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to one side. No way it would have come
straight down.
Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes,
it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions." I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have
hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is
going to know the difference?"
I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah, right.
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm
I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for the long posts above, and do not
object to anyone else's views on this.
1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe floor 3 or 6, none of which show
any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must have been to lower floors.
2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across an entire floor, while the
only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts from their prior collapses.
3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn that structure if security required.
I do not know about this.
But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower collapses that suggests controlled
explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:
4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and fuel hit.
5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with chunks and dust thrown outward
from the collapsing sections only.
6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That is conclusive.
7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the falling structure as it comes down
just to create that appearance, and would use many times the explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning floor had collapsed due to explosions
instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could
such a system have been controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw the results when a fuel truck
overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge
in the 1970s (no casualties).
10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly fuel tanks; no doubt that has been
estimated.
11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't supply heat as fast as an
intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the steel cooling the heated portion.
Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril of the fittest or survival of
the least fit, both very apt in our era.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security" budgets and "justifications"
for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more than two birds were killed with one stone .
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name. Thanks, Gregory.
Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm
I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm
To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.
Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am
A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining fuel burned up there would be
no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated
with the WTC. If any temperature melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and
isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which is certainly not consistent with
the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out)
and nanothermite residue were in evidence.
Why do both?
The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon, not just the WTC. The "plane
crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter. Let's not make assumptions
about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to contrived to nonexistent.
Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment on the subject here. Discussion
about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse. I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter
to their own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction).
george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am
Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001 bombings
UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am
It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing body parts for the big oil
adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and
lottery computers we can have an economy again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror
and new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You can't afford it.
Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over what's left. Nothing is left
now. News isn't fake, the money is.
mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am
I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal, "yes, I lied, but it was
for a good reason!"
Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about Russia starting the war in Georgia.
That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president of Georgia.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am
mej – you're right.
Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am
Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say of Russians shows in fact we're
looking at ourselves.
Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am
Let me put it another way;
We're not going to return kind for kind,
we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
Good luck .
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am
Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would discharge him from his office
immediately.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm
Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead of being thoroughly discredited
for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.
He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words up. "This man is at the end of
his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't realize grandpa-types can deceive too.
Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's one or the other. Now he's off
to pollute Australia.
"In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University (ANU) National Security College
in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in
the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.
In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance or disrespect', called the firing
of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an 'internal assault on our intuitions'."
The asylum has taken over.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am
The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power in a big way. These are glory days
for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media,
both major political parties, and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump.
The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized rabble, no match for the forces
arrayed against them.
It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment. He just doesn't have the resources
to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.
Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete unhingement of a segment of
the American population who have no rational understanding of what happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the
loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for
the madness unleashed in the US.
In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome: Refusal to Reason is the
New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident:
"Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central
Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is presented looking like Trump and
will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated by plunging knives.
This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge mentions that social media has become
a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible
this could happen simply because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity behind
the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin.
Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming
unnerving and I have a strange sense of foreboding.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am
Neoliberal_rationality/ will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves of emotional madness will be
important.
Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am
As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:
"Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent of world domination. Since the USA
have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.
"The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia does oppose to what passes for democracy
in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially:
blatant racism, dividing the world on übermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy and
open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the reason for the Hague tribunal, while
children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors,
suffering and deaths of civilians and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.
USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really, all 7 billion people, not
just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys into their transparent lies and double standards.
For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy. And we'll see how it turns out.
So far the human history teaches us that every time the übermensch eventually break their necks and diminish.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am
Yes. Good comment.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am
Pixy,
Thank you for saying all of this.
MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am
""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."
I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with but to deepen the discussion.
Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality." Powerful forces in the
US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the
Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their
power) is the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking over the world and
dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful
god and rid the world of evil. We see the results of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has
perpetrated against the rest of the world sense WWII.
Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those countries trying to be neutral
are just as evil as the others.
All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally superior to the rest of the
world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.
Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter of millions, is no longer the
fundamental guiding ideology.
You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am
Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.
Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am
You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are doing it for the trillions of
dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less. Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe
to explain to us why we have to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.
. By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots
in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures
as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with
the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they
were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described
in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from political
oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization
of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally
useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant substituting
the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its
Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired
by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example
of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable
to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved
to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from
God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,
"with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied no models for warriors contending
with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in
their hearts and the sword in their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans: the
Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and Joab routing the foes of their country;
and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every
verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed for
them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear while they trusted in God. Oliver
Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered
the attacking heathens; or to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."
Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am
"Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law"
"Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process"
Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community too much credit. There is
no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware
of their self serving actions and it is motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion
of propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with it.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am
Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.
Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their own black hearts allow themselves
the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe"
their own shit even while knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.
Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people who follow and post on CN are
opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance
of the US, and you say comes from Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting
point when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We, the dissenters in the US,
have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult. And your good points from Russia are written in a
clearer way than many Americans could even write, since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down"
the citizens.
But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as you must know are certainly not
fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with
the native peoples who opposed the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically
because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way to stop the failing empire. We
have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the
1990s tried to destroy Russia. But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin
accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the shots.
I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge to the USA, knowing that US
cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant
and arrogant that Americans are not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points
you have made, thank you.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am
Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be dominated or destroyed. Capitalism
is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus
said in Plato's Republic, "Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations, and is
the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's struggle to dominate others. The ultimate
goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God
over everything! When Ayn Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.
Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more accurately "required") by nature
to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land, resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they
do everything in their power to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by conflating
the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible
hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent "god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in
conventional wisdom not only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.
Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the public into subordinating their
own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces
back to our earliest recorded history. But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery
for so many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.
Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long? Ah, yes, the principle of "divide
and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another
rather than challenge them. So much easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible
to assault and steal from him than from the lords at the top.
I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions and meager rewards. They
are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital
idea! And how we are fools for not seeing the obvious nature of things.
Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying it through history by the Roundheads
and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth
lackey, USA. The OT god is a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really do believe
in end times.
Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am
"complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public
hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of
the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.
"However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes
the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means
that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences
if caught were worth the risk.
"In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US
foreign policy.
"While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from
undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi
Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern
Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting
to over 110 billion US dollars.
"It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue
under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump."
US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
By Ulson Gunnar
landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/06/us-election-meddling-smoke-and-mirrors.html
I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's incredibly difficult Piano
Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should
call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was
one of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned to Russia. The government of
the USA is very, very sick and evil.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm
David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.
DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote to me: "There's no reason to give
the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures
only the favored voices are heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the fact
that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous feats that are widely publicized in
order to give him a superhero reputation these things are not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I
were in Russia, I could/would write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side,
the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.
Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem, rather than the people in general.
The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the
sum of history and it's hard to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear of
communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists and US oligarchs, we might have seen
what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides
from the Stalin era through the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners
in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.
If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms, defense, etc. (and of course no
social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and
we will never know what the outcome might have been.
My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep some balance, I avoid the pressure
to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured
to see conflict as a sports event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by extension
the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs of both sides bring conflict to a head by
lying to us about everything, helping us believe we can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply
a great example of these beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the other "team."
Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am
Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other powers, because they need a
foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every
large group, the US failure to protect democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia
has a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation, and scheming.
This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally selected some rulers of
present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot
find better ways to protect democracy from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.
mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree with what I felt was your leaning
over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation,
there are sides to be taken, and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious
and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number one disaster for everyone
alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here. To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired
of trying to point out the obvious to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you
in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too concerned with being "even handed"
for my taste.
backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm
David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm always floored when I hear these
guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when, if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other
country is just trying to defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?
I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on
the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like
warlords, and it's just nice to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.
Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member said about Russia. The US bureaucratic
leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's
no way to make exact comparisons between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also
many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially hypocritical since the US
still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate number of them in prison after not even giving
them opportunities as the whites. The US has a lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to
attack others and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am
Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness with respect to gay rights, there
is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United
States.
I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree with all of your points about Clapper,
he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter. As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation
of the nefarious covert operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging from satanists,
Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment, you address a very under reported issue, which
I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight
the communists. I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that is too sensitive
to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love to more of your ideas on this subject.
Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am
Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations. This is the truth that is,
just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very clearly, the central story of the past century.
Thank you for saying it so well.
Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things. Telling the truth might see you
ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.
Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am
"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the
thousand Russian agents."
– Hillary
Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am
"The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us
as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.
And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi lover McCain. We in Aus really
are pathetic grovellers.
Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am
This nails the anti Russia movement
Zero Hedge
Why the Elites Hate Russia
1, Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries.
The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":
Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat
to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office
said two branches of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would
be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian
state.
2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs
however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military – it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to
the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:
3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because
they had a few semesters of French.
. Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.
While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply
don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.
Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country for all its vaunted proclamations
about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down
economically so many harbor resentments.
Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited its citizens for military service
when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend
whose son-in-law has to finish his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted
in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes wasted money. I suspect Russians
have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.
Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am
Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron". I never get a hit. MacronLeaks
proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate.
The parallels are astonishing: a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon)
and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round and then discredit Fillon, in
the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in
the second round, thereby allowing Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story
before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's arms before the vote. In
a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell
into a trap he had set for them. The matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public,
one Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is therefore established that Russians,
whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought
to rig the French presidential election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James
Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.
Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am
Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?
Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a Rothschild banker, he appeared
as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated
by the wealthy. Obama endorsed Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports the
neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched the wealthy wherever it is employed.
Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought
in, hired as wage slaves, the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are making
inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have lied in the past about domestic surveillance;
he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know
they did it (although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest, the most bizarre
thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you put yourself in the same category of absurdity.
TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years with no end in sight the American
public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into
supporting more guns. Econ 101 .. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?
J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which he, along with Brennan, Comey,
and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews
with Megyn Kelley and better yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President
Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.
"... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
"... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
"... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16
WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter
rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!" and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding
inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election.
Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein,
the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last
month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote,
apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.
"Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.
The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine
officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds.
The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling senior positions and increasingly
at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong feud with the government's intelligence agencies.
Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness and uncertainty, with some expressing
hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed
in each district after Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.
In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III,
the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United
States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich,
an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed at destroying" the Trump presidency.
...
graphic: How 7 Trump Associates Have Been
Linked to Russia https://nyti.ms/2sVvf23
NYT - updated June 13
American hegemony is the neoconservatives doctrine and "the Russian threat" is an insurance of MIC $1.1 trillion annual budget.
And DemoRats now are just another War party, a bunch of lobbyists with the only difference that they get less money from Israel,
and more from MIC and Wall Street (all wars are bankers wars)
Those "very serious guys" are determined to install President Pence and already succeeded in applointed a Special Prosecutor
as the milestone of this color revolution.
Poor Trump did not realized that he is trapped until it was too late.
Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has
launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This
liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.
Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.
For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conveniently
overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow
of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate
aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink
of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the
Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding
of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary
rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the
US Constitution]."
In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism."
All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."
"... American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker. ..."
"... The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc). ..."
Russian president Vladimir Putin (
who denies any Russian part in the hacking
) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal
in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty
with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's
four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our
American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior
in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "
American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total
Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of
money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.
The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show
they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android,
iOS, Linux based etc etc).
I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep
up.
"... Waddell and the Atlantic, among others, like the Daily Beast - known mouthpieces for the Democratic establishment scrambling to blame Hillary Clinton's loss on everything but the kitchen sink of a horribly flawed campaign - realize to some degree the threat posed by legitimate criticism of the accepted narrative. ..."
"... Zuckerberg's protestations and resistance to acknowledge 'fake news' as influencing the outcome of the election quickly melted under pressure from the pro-Hillary camp - and evaporated as Clintonites and a smattering of miffed Republicans switched gears and ratcheted up New Red Scare propagandizing. ..."
"... When utterly unfounded, un-researched, and unverified reporting by the Washington Post termed the collective body of independent, right-slanted, or pro-Jill Stein media organizations as either active agents of Russia or the Putin's "useful idiots," those outlets formed an implicit bond for having been scurrilously blacklisted. ..."
"... Once the Post's thinly-veneered paper tiger went down in flames for it being impossible to substantiate, the outlet threw journalistic integrity out the window and proffered another unprovable paragon of irresponsibility: " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ." ..."
As you've likely heard by now, Facebook has taken its war against 'fake
news' to a whole other level - employing third party media and fact-checking organizations to judge
whether news items are legitimate - to the consternation of countless users who see the platform
overstepping red lines.
Servile corporate media immediately parroted the wealth of benefits Facebook's
plan will ostensibly provide, from an alert and gateway system forced onto articles deemed "disputed,"
to the
organizations making the 'kiss of death' judgment call: Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, and
ABC News.
Anyone with passing knowledge of bias in media is probably spitting out their coffee - all four
organizations are
notoriously left-leaning and liberal, and the list includes no outlets with any other of myriad
ideological tilts.
Indeed, right-leaning outlets from Breitbart to the Drudge Report, as well as the sizable alternative
media community - who, collectively, held to higher journalistic standards throughout the election
cycle than "old media" titans like the New York Times and Washington Post - quickly
condemned the unabashed bias imbued in Facebook's plan.
Mark Zuckerberg, a large consensus concluded, just declared war on dissent - if not information,
itself.
But in an article intended to criticize purveyors of 'fake news' and applaud the social media
platform's oh-so-noble efforts to strike such outlets from the American interwebs, The Atlantic's
Kaveh Waddell posited, "
Will Facebook's Fake News Warning Become a Badge of Honor? "
Waddell asks this question, the reader doesn't discover until more than halfway through the article,
through a lens of myopic bias - if not outright scorn - against anyone who dare question the motives
of Facebook or its choice of fact-checkers.
"There's a danger that people who are disinclined to trust traditional sources of information
will treat Facebook's warnings as a badge of honor," Waddell clarifies. "If fact-checking organizations
deem a story questionable, they might be more likely to read and share it, rather than less. There's
reason to believe this group might think of itself as a counterculture, and take the position that
anything that 'the man' rejects must have a grain of subversive truth to it."
For a journalist in a nationally-regarded publication to display such seething condescension toward
a category of people perhaps most critical to preventing a narrowing of news media to a single viewpoint
is criminally self-interested, indeed - evincing the paranoia among old media to validate its reporting
in the wake of horrendous election coverage.
Regardless of his patronizing tone, Waddell's question presents what might be the thinnest silver
lining to having a Facebook-approved information gatekeeper - news deemed "disputed" will be viewed
by non-establishment thinkers as bearing the Scarlet Letter C - censored for being problematic for
the political elite.
In other words, this soft censorship could facilely create a Streisand Effect - whereby efforts
to suppress content backfire and instead draw greater attention to something than it ever would have
received otherwise.
Waddell and the Atlantic, among others,
like the Daily Beast - known mouthpieces for the Democratic establishment scrambling to blame
Hillary Clinton's loss on everything but the kitchen sink of a horribly flawed campaign - realize
to some degree the threat posed by legitimate criticism of the accepted narrative.
This battle has literally nil to do with fake news - or even Russia - and everything to do with
the power of dissent.
Of course, a brazen irony in Facebook's purge of random items is CEO Mark Zuckerberg's
comments
on the subject prior to mass Democratic and corporate media hysteria over iterations Donald Trump
won because Russia:
"Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a
very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan
view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome
of this election in one direction or the other."
Zuckerberg's protestations and resistance to acknowledge 'fake news' as influencing the outcome of
the election quickly melted under pressure from the pro-Hillary camp - and evaporated as Clintonites
and a smattering of miffed Republicans switched gears and ratcheted up New Red Scare propagandizing.
When utterly unfounded, un-researched, and unverified
reporting by the Washington Post termed the collective body of independent, right-slanted,
or pro-Jill Stein media organizations as either active agents of Russia or the Putin's "useful idiots,"
those outlets formed an implicit bond for having been scurrilously blacklisted.
Once the Post's thinly-veneered paper tiger went down in flames for it being impossible
to substantiate, the outlet threw journalistic integrity out the window and proffered another unprovable
paragon of irresponsibility: "
Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ."
This gem swears CIA officials have performed an extensive assessment of the election and can prove
individuals with ties to the Russian government as responsible for submitting documents on the Democratic
Party to Wikileaks for publication - an allegation Julian Assange emerged from the shadows to dispel
in an interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday.
Wikileaks - whose published documents have never been proven inauthentic - found itself on the
Post's 'Russian agent blacklist.'
In other words, by relying on user-reporting and biased outlets to flag articles means any "disputed"
contents feasibly earned that label on a subjective - not hard and fast - basis.
But should there be any labeling - read: moderate censorship - of articles and items by a social
media behemoth who claims impartiality while rubbing elbows with Democratic heavy-hitters. All grumblings
on Facebook's status as a public entity aside, when your platform acts as the primary news aggregator
for millions, there is a staunch obligation to preserve the rights of everyone to speak their version
of truth.
To be honest, that includes outlets spewing horrendously false news items as the real thing.
In this new age of information aptly
deemed the post-truth era by the Oxford Dictionaries this year, the onus of consequence for sharing
any erroneous or fabricated information falls squarely on the shoulders of the fecklessly lazy who
don't bother checking sources and hyperlinks - or, in most cases, read more than the title - before
disseminating information online.
Because that basic duty was apparently too much for so many to bear, we're now all faced with
the Huxleyan prospect of being spoon fed vanilla government propaganda disguised as news - while
legitimate news earns the dystopic "disputed" label.
Maybe, just maybe, Waddell and the others have it all wrong. Maybe the imminent Streisand Effect
will thwart Facebook gatekeeping in its tracks. Maybe people have wearied of the perilous penchant
for categorization. Maybe this Scarlet Lettering of dissenting viewpoints will disgust the wary and
students of history.
Maybe Facebook will see its fast-approaching, inevitable demise and decide the suppression of
information does not a profitable business move make - or maybe the "disputed" info plot represents
the ultimate poison pill.
Comment: See also:
"... The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech"; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it. ..."
"... That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with "(chaos)" actually written in the side bar and "((makes air quotes))" written before the "bucket of losers" piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done." ..."
"... Their Fake News tweets - warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake - remain posted, with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks archive. That includes MSNBC segments that spread this accusation. ..."
The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to
other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech"; because the phrase lacks
any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship.
The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News
are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous
group and its
disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets - a
shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite
the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week
finally added a lame editor's note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed
that they did not mean to "vouch for the validity" of the blacklist even though the article's key
claims were based on doing exactly that).
Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails
from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople
adopted a strategy of
outright lying to the public,
claiming
- with no basis whatsoever - that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus
should be ignored . That lie - and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity
or reckless disregard for its truth - was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such
as JoyAnn Reid and
Malcolm Nance
, The Atlantic's
David Frum , and
Newsweek's
Kurt Eichenwald .
That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked - and thus should be disregarded
- was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established
news outlets such as MSNBC, The Atlantic, and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like
wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager
to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting
on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had
been proven fake.
The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC's intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I
documented on October 11 , he tweeted what he - for some bizarre reason - labeled an "Official
Warning." It decreed: "
# PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
# blackpropaganda
not even professionally done." That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested
with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like
Reid and
Frum ("expert
to take seriously").
All of that, in turn, led to
an article in something called the "Daily News Bin" with the headline: "MSNBC intelligence expert:
WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton." This classic fake news
product - citing Nance and Reid among others - was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.
Joe, Malcolm Nance & other experts have validated these emails have been forged & altered by
Russia before passing them off to Wikileaks!
https://t.co/gZ7rVQ6JJp
From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters
- not the WikiLeaks documents - that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate
disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created
it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.
When Nance - MSNBC's "intelligence analyst" - issued his "Official Warning," he linked to
a tweet that
warned: "Please be skeptical of alleged
#PodestaEmails .
Trumpists are dirtying docs." That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling
itself "The Omnivore," which had
posted an obviously
fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that
fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired
claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.
But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a "Trumpist" at all; he
was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous "The
Omnivore" account
unmasks himself as "Marco Chacon," a self-professed creator of "viral fake news" whose targets
were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the
goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn't
posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clinton's opponents look bad, his account looked
like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump,
with links to many Clinton-defending articles.
In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the
forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases
of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized
WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked
- Clinton critics - into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they
were gullible and dumb.
Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were
the nation's most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC
who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised
and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real
now horrifies even Chacon:
The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending - but still going today - hashtag
#bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence
analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release .
That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able
to easily spot the fake with "(chaos)" actually written in the side bar and "((makes air quotes))"
written before the "bucket of losers" piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from
referencing the document and saying: "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to
be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
At the end of the day, did this change anything? I don't know. I think I inadvertently hurt
WikiLeaks, which I'm not proud of - but I'm not too sorry about either. I suspect that some people
came to realize that they were believing in fake things.
That last sentence - that as a result of his fraud, "some people came to realize that they were
believing in fake things" - is false, at least insofar as it applies to people like Eichenwald, Frum,
Nance, and Reid. Even though it was clear from the start to any rational and honest person that there
was zero evidence that any of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored, and even though (as Chacon himself
says) nobody minimally informed (let alone supposed "intelligence experts") should have been fooled
by his blatant Fake News, none of the journalists who lied to the public about these WikiLeaks documents
have even once acknowledged what they did.
Their Fake News tweets - warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake - remain posted,
with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks
archive. That includes MSNBC segments that spread this accusation.
Indeed, not only should it have been blatantly obvious that Chacon's anonymously posted document
did not impugn the WikiLeaks archive, but also the slightest research would have revealed that the
person who manufactured the forgery was a Clinton supporter , not a "Trumpist" or a Kremlin
operative. Indeed, one of the Clinton-criticizing journalists who Chacon tried to trick, Michael
Tracey, said
exactly this at the time . But because his facts contradicted the MSNBC/Newsweek political agenda,
they were ignored in favor of the lie that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and doctored:
FYI: one of the accounts ( @OmnivoreBlog
) that circulated a fake HRC speech transcript is a pro-Clinton troll spreading disinformation.
pic.twitter.com/HZ3UBm9pk8
I will be shocked if any of them now acknowledge this even with Chacon's confession. That's because
MSNBC has repeatedly proven that it tolerates Fake News and outright lies from its personalities
as long as those lies are in service of the right candidate (when Democrats were
smearing Jill Stein as a Kremlin stooge , Reid's program aired Nance's lie to MSNBC viewers that
Stein had previously hosted her own show on RT: an utter fabrication that MSNBC, to this day, has
never corrected or even acknowledged despite
multiple requests from
FAIR ).
On Reid's show, Malcolm Nance falsely claimed Jill Stein hosted an RT show, & they just refuse
to correct/retract it. How is that allowed?
https://t.co/FKb5J0HDKF
Every day, literally, you can turn on MSNBC and hear various people so righteously lamenting the
spread of "Fake News." Yet MSNBC itself not only spreads Fake News but refuses to correct it when
it is exposed. How do they have any credibility to denounce Fake News? They do not.
That journalists and "experts" outright lied to the public this way in order to help their favorite
candidate is obviously dangerous. This was most powerfully pointed out - ironically - by Marty Baron,
executive editor of the Washington Post, who
told the New York Times's Jim Rutenberg : "If you have a society where people can't agree on
basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?"
Exactly: If you have prominent journalists telling the public to trust an anonymous group with
a false McCarthyite blacklist, or telling it to ignore informative documents on the grounds that
they are fake when there is zero reason to believe that they are fake, that is a direct threat to
democracy. In the case of the Podesta emails, these lies were perpetrated by the very factions that
have taken to most loudly victimizing themselves over the spread of Fake News.
But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake News are typically
accompanied by calls for "solutions" that involve censorship and suppression, either by the government
or tech giants such as Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of "Fake News," and until
it's recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very people most loudly complaining
about it, the dangers posed by these solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.
Note: The article was lightly edited to reflect the correct date of the Daily Beast article:
November 21.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Information
Clearing House editorial policy.
According to Fox News and NBC, China flew such bomber on November 25 (Dec 5, 6 reps above), well
BEFORE the Trump phone call.
It also flew the bombers AFTER (Dec 9 rep) the Trump's phone call with
the Taiwanese government. Indeed it regularly
flies these bombers.
The sightseeing flight had thereby nothing at all to do with any Trump call.
Correlating the call with those flights is bogus spin.
The headlines above are all nonsense. There is nothing "nuclear" and the flights of
outdated bombers
have nothing to do with any Trump call to wherever. They are
#fakenews just as most of the other news we get is:
News is fake. The higher the stakes for the ruling classes, the more you can be certain the mainstream
news about it will be as fake as fuck and conversely, reports deemed fake by those same fakers
should be duly considered on their merits.
According to Fox News and NBC, China flew such bomber on November 25 (Dec 5, 6 reps above), well
BEFORE the Trump phone call. It also flew the bombers AFTER (Dec 9 rep) the Trump's phone call with
the Taiwanese government. Indeed it regularly
flies these bombers. The sightseeing flight had thereby nothing at all to do with any Trump call.
Correlating the call with those flights is bogus spin.
The headlines above are all nonsense. There is nothing "nuclear" and the flights of
outdated bombers
have nothing to do with any Trump call to wherever. They are
#fakenews just as most of the other news we get is:
News is fake. The higher the stakes for the ruling classes, the more you can be certain the mainstream
news about it will be as fake as fuck and conversely, reports deemed fake by those same fakers
should be duly considered on their merits.
You know the pressure will be on now, from the State Department and other US sources, for European
leaders to get their populations in line and start singing from the same song sheet again. Gonna
be a tough sell in Germany, though.
So far none of the American promises about laying waste to Russia has come about. Generally
speaking I find that if you announce "THIS is going to happen", and then you have to keep coming
back to it and doing more stuff to shore it up and make it happen, then your initial plan sucked.
Oliver Stone Undresses Putin, Shows the Man Behind the Legend
Oliver Stone has done something remarkable, he "tricked" Putin into revealing more of himself
than the Russian leader ever intended
62
Before we stumble into a nuclear war and end life on the planet, the American people might want
to watch Oliver Stone's four-part series of interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin on "Showtime."
Stone accomplishes what Western journalists should do but don't, by penetrating deeply into the personality
of this historic figure.
Typically these days, American TV news personalities use interviews with a demonized foreign leader,
like Putin, to demonstrate their own "toughness" on air, hurling insulting questions at the target
and pretending that this preening behavior proves their courage.
In reality, it is bad journalism for a wide variety of reasons: The interview subject will normally
retreat into canned talking points, so nothing is really learned; the TV viewer will get to see some
theatrics but no insights into what makes the foreign leader tick; and – most importantly – chances
of going to war with the despised leader's country increase.
Yet, it's not all bad: the "confrontation" will boost the career prospects of the self-aggrandizing
"journalist" who will add the highlights of the insult-fest to his or her video résumé.
By coming across as unthreatening and personable – almost like the TV detective Columbo – Stone
strips away many of Putin's defenses, creating a dynamic in which the Russian president struggles
between his characteristic cautiousness and a willingness to be more candid.
Putin seems to like Stone while sensing that Stone is playing him. In one of the early interviews,
in July 2015, Stone asks Putin about the "ambiguity" of Josef Stalin's legacy, obviously a sensitive
and complex question for a Russian who may admire Stalin's determination during World War II but
abhor Stalin's excesses in annihilating political enemies.
Stone Directs Putin
At the start of a late interview in February 2017, Stone even acts like a director, dispatching
Putin down a hallway so his entrance can be more dramatically filmed. "Pretend we haven't seen each
other in months," Stone tells Putin.
After Putin has retreated down the hallway, Stone yells, "Action! Action!" but when nothing happens,
he tells the official interpreter, "Tell him 'action' in Russian."
Then, after more delay, Stone seeks out his assistant director: "Where's my A.D.? Come on! Where's
my A.D.?" before worrying that maybe Putin "went into another meeting."
But Putin finally strolls down the hallway, carrying two cups of coffee, offering one to Stone
in English, "Coffee, sir?"
Yet, perhaps the climatic scene in this tension between "director" and "actor" comes at the end
of the four-part series when Putin seems to recognize that Stone may have gotten the better of him
in this friendly competition spread out in conversations from July 2015 to February 2017.
After finishing what was meant to be the last interview (though a later one was tacked on), Putin
turns to Stone and voices concern for the risks that the director is taking by undertaking this series
of interviews which Putin knows – because the interviews are not openly antagonistic to Putin – will
draw a hostile reaction from the mainstream U.S. media.
At that moment, the roles get reversed. Putin, the wary subject of Stone's interviews, is being
solicitous of Stone, throwing the director off-balance.
"Thank you for your time and your questions," Putin tells Stone. "Thank you for being so thorough."
Putin then adds: "Have you ever been beaten?"
Caught off guard, Stone replies: "Beaten? Oh, yes."
Putin: "So it's not going to be something new, because you are going to suffer for what you are
doing."
Stone: "Oh, sure, yeah. I know but it's worth it if it brings some more peace and cautiousness
to the world."
Putin: "Thank you."
In modern America – the so-called "land of the free, home of the brave" – a new media paradigm
has taken hold, in which only the official U.S. side of a story can be told; any suggestion that
there might be another side of the Russia story, for instance, makes you a "Putin apologist," a "Moscow
stooge" or a disseminator of "propaganda" and "fake news."
Harsh Reviews
And Putin was not mistaken. The early mainstream media's reaction to Stone's interview series
has concentrated on attacking Stone for not being tougher on Putin, just as Putin expected.
For instance, The New York Times headlines
its review
in its print editions, "Letting Vladimir Putin Talk, Unchallenged," and begins with
a swipe at Stone for his "well-established revisionist views on American history and institutions."
Stone is also mocked for questioning the current elite groupthink that Russia helped make "Donald
J. Trump president of the United States."
The Washington Post
column
by Ann Hornaday was even snarkier, entitled in print editions: "Stone drops cred to give
a Russian bear hug." Although only seeing the first two segments of the four-part series, Hornaday
clearly wanted Stone to perform one of those self-righteous confrontations, like all the "star journalists"
do, beating their breasts and repeating the usual litany of unsubstantiated charges against Putin
that pervade the major U.S. media.
Hornaday writes: "But what might have once promised to be an explosive on-screen matching-of-wits
instead arrives just in time to be colossally irrelevant: an erstwhile scoop made instantly negligible
by the breaking news it's been engulfed by, and the imaginative and ideological limits of its director."
The truth, however, is that Stone asks pretty much all the tough questions that one would pose
to Putin and succeeds in drawing Putin out from his protective shell. In so doing, Stone sheds more
light on the potentially existential conflict between the two nuclear-armed superpowers than anything
else that I have seen.
While the series makes some genuine news, it also allows Putin to explain his thinking regarding
some of the key controversies that have stoked the New Cold War, including his reaction to the Ukraine
crisis. While Putin has offered these explanations before, they will be news to many Americans because
Putin's side of the story has been essentially blacked out by the major U.S. newspapers and networks.
A Vulnerable Character
Personally, I came away from watching "The Putin Interviews" both more and less impressed with
the Russian leader. What I saw was a more vulnerable personality than I had expected, but I was impressed
by Putin's grasp of global issues, including a sophisticated understanding of American power.
Putin surely does not appear to be the diabolical monster that current American propaganda presents,
which may be the greatest accomplishment of Stone's series, revealing Putin as a multi-dimensional
and complex figure. You may go into the series expecting a cartoonish villain, but that is not what
you'll find.
Putin comes across as a politician and bureaucrat who found himself, somewhat unwittingly and
unwillingly, thrust into a historical role at an extraordinarily challenging time for Russia.
In the 1990s, Russians were reeling from the devastating impact of U.S.-prescribed economic "shock
therapy" after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The nation's riches were sold off to well-connected
thieves who became known as the "oligarchs," overnight billionaires who used their riches to gain
control of the political and media levers of power. Meanwhile, average Russians fell into poverty
and saw their life expectancy drop at unparalleled rates for a country not at war.
Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first president and a corrupt drunkard who was kept in
power by American manipulation of the 1996 Russian election, picked Putin, a former KGB intelligence
officer and security bureaucrat, to be his prime minister in August 1999.
To Stone, Putin explains his hesitancy to accept the promotion: "When Yeltsin offered me the job
for the first time, I refused. He invited me into his office and told me he wanted to appoint me
Prime Minister, and that he wanted me to run for President. I told him that was a great responsibility,
and that meant I would have to change my life, and I wasn't sure I wanted to do that.
"It's one thing when you are a bureaucrat, even a high-level one, you can almost live an ordinary
life. You can see your friends, go to the cinema and the theater, and not assume personal responsibility
for the fate of millions of people and for everything that is going on in the country. And to assume
responsibility for Russia back then was a very difficult thing to do."
Family Fears
Putin continues: "Frankly speaking, I didn't know what President Yeltsin's final plans were with
regard to me. And I didn't know how long I would be there. Because at any moment the President could
tell me, 'You are fired.' And there was only one thing I was thinking about, 'Where to hide my children?'
"Just imagine, if I were dismissed, I didn't have any bodyguards. Nothing. And what would I do?
How would I live? How would I secure my family? And back then I decided if that was my fate, then
I had to go to the end. And I didn't know beforehand that I would become President. There were no
guarantees of that."
However, at the dawn of the new Millennium, Yeltsin surprisingly announced his resignation, making
Putin his heir apparent. It was a time of extraordinary crisis for Russia and Russians.
When Stone compares the challenges that President Ronald Reagan faced in the 1980s to those that
Putin confronted when he took power in 2000, Putin replied, with classic Russia whimsy, "Almost being
broke and actually being broke are two entirely different things."
Once assuming office, however, Putin set about reining in many of the oligarchs and rebuilding
the Russian economy and social safety net. His success in achieving an economic turnaround and a
marked improvement in the social metrics explain much of his enduring popularity with the Russian
people.
But Putin does not come off as a natural politician. When you see Putin up close for the several
hours of these interviews, you can't miss his unease in the spotlight, a tight control, even a shyness.
Yet, there is a winning quality from that vulnerability which seems to have further endeared him
to the Russian people.
Compared to many Western politicians, Putin also has retained a common touch. One scene shows
Stone interviewing Putin as the Russian president drives his own car, something you would never see
an American president doing.
Putin also takes Stone along for a hockey match in which the now 64-year-old Putin dons a uniform
and laces up skates for a wobbly performance on the ice. By his own admission, he just began skating
a few years earlier and he takes a couple of falls or stumbles. Putin doesn't come across as the
all-powerful autocrat of U.S. propaganda.
At the end of part two of "The Putin Interviews," Stone even gets Putin to watch Stanley Kubrick's
1964 Cold War classic "Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," a very
dark comedy about the U.S. and the Soviet Union bumbling into a nuclear conflagration, a film that
Putin hadn't seen before.
After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring message. "The thing is that
since that time little has changed," Putin says. "The only difference is that the modern weapon systems
have become more sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the inability
to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has become even more difficult, more
dangerous."
Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an adjoining office before
realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American
gift." An aide then rushes up to hand him the DVD.
rosemerry
Thank you. I was never anti-Russian and visited the USSR from London in 1966, finding the people there, and the visitors, worth meeting and understanding a little about. In those days the people knew that Radio Moscow and Voice of Amercia were propaganda, but ound the BBC to be more even-handed (how things have changed!)
I find Putin in the interviews, plus other book including his autobiographical "First Person") streets ahead of any other present world leader, able to think through issues, get along with widely differing nations and treat all with respect and understanding. His explanations are clear and if people bother to listen, they can perhaps gain some insight into the "foreign policy" disasters o their own nations.
I'm impressed that Putin would even sit for this kind of interview-
not just with Oliver Stone, but with a hostile journalist
representing a foreign power like Megan Kelly. I can't imagine an
American president subjecting themselves to that kind of thing.
Oliver Stone is not a presstitute which is why the interview was
courteous and asked logical questions relevant to the real world,
which is the opposite of what we got with Megan Kelly. The Western
media are losing huge numbers of viewers and readership every year,
as they are owned by a handful of large corporations. This explains
why there is now a concerted effort by the puppet leaders such as
Merkel, Macron and May to push for new laws to regulate the
internet.
"Anyone who relies on the Western media lives inside
The Matrix." - Paul Craig Roberts
The interviews will give the people of the world the ability to
see the real Putin and not the propaganda they get in the West,
with the outcome being a better understanding of Russia and its
President.
Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries
into an adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He
reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American
gift." An aide then rushes up to hand him the DVD.
That, is the
history of the US wrapped up in a anecdote. The US reciprocates
nothing.
The sad thing is not only the US general negative attitude to Putin
but the refusal to contemplate that perhaps Putin has a point in
the many disagreements (eg encircling Russia with US and NATO
bases)
that the USA assumes it is the "good guy". Putin's point on
sovereignty is worth thinking about as so many more nations join
NATO whose purpose was finished with the breakdown of the
USSR and the end of the Warsaw Pact. If Russia were an enemy, all
the nukes etc parked in the member States make them vulnerable, not
safe.
Note that even here we have to have the hubristic American view
that the USA must be right and perhaps Pres. Putin is really a
trickster. Putin has already a very good autobiography in English
(First Person) which is worth reading even though it is from 2000.
Imagine an interesting setup like this with Dubya, or Trump, or
either Clinton!! What would you learn?
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by
the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR.
Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want
to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the
U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy
of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged
to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all
the system has left."
"... The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left." ..."
"... "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy." ..."
"Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump," said Black Agenda Report editor
and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley , addressing BAR's panel at the Left Forum, in New York City.
"What have they done since Election Day?" Kimberley asked. "They have refused to give even the appearance
that they are willing to push for even meager reforms. We have to talk about replacing them and having
a true workers party, a true peace party."
Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"
The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood"
by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst
at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't
want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people
in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist
economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once
belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course.
War is all the system has left."
A Real Left Would Demand Peace
"If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy,"
BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply
resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy."
Ford said the nation needs a rejuvenated anti-war movement, "or else we are defenseless against
this kind of strategy on the part of the Democrats, who pretend that they are an alternative to the
fascist-sounding and definitely virulently white nationalist forces in the Republican Party, but
are themselves intent upon a war policy that can mean the extinction of the human race."
But ... economically you say you are self-sufficient ... they're gone, let them have their
problems. It's not going to destoy your country.
Putin :
Not in the least.
Stone :
... and at one point you told me in our last meeting that ... I asked you, you know, what about
the Russian [base at Sevastopol] ... you told me that it [Russia] wasn't threatened by the loss
of the base ...
Putin :
It was a threat, losing this base, but it was not too sensitive. Right now we are commissioning
a new military base not far from here in Novorossiysk.
Stone :
Even if nato made an agreement with Ukraine, I still don't see the threat to Russia ... with
the new weaponry.
Putin :
I see a threat.
The threat consists in the fact that once nato comes to this or that country, the political
leadership of that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence the positions
nato takes, including the decisions related to stationing the military infrastructure. Even very
sensitive weapons can be deployed. I'm also talking about anti-ballistic missile systems.
Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly
due to Eastern European countries, because they are trying to resist the former dominating power
of the Soviet Union. Right now it's mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop.
Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they've [the Americans] managed to stimulate such
an attitude towards Russia, viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor.
But very soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat whatsoever emanating
from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or to Eastern Europe or to Western Europe. And the
stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their [European]
sovereignty and to fend for their national interests.
So this constant feeling of being under pressure, let me assure you, is something no one is
happy about. Sooner or later it's going to have consequences if it's going to stop. And it's better
if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries
to paint a darker picture, but i think what's needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm,
a new philosophy for building relations among countries.
And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interest of othe countries, for the sovereignty
of other peoples, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be
resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to cease to exist sooner
or later.
from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof,
actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european
nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the
eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise,
brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner
or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.
from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact
thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash
to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and
the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right
into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have
to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.
@15 You mistate/misunderstood: "There was a simultaneous vote..." There was not.
S.Amdt. 232 (increase sanctions on Russia and limit Trump) was an amendment to
S. 722 (the Iranian sanctions bill).
Sanders voted for 232 because, frankly, he's all on board the Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria
and demonizing Syria. He voted against 722 for the potential damage to the multi-lateral nuclear
agreement with Iran. From his senate.gov website today:
" I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable
for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the
world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies
and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime
in Syria.
I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important
tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could
endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its
partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened
tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a
more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities,
but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
Any Darwin Awards fans out there? For those few who have never heard of them, the Darwin Awards
celebrate those individuals who have rendered a significant service to mankind by taking themselves
out of the global gene pool. In preparing to discuss today's subject, I am reminded of unfortunate
1999 award-winner 'James' from Missouri, who became so fixated upon his love interest that he
tried to lop off
his own head with a chainsaw to demonstrate his commitment to an outcome on his terms. Although
he was ultimately unsuccessful on both counts, he did fatally injure himself, and died in hospital.
Ashes to ashes; dust to dust.
My intent today is to demonstrate clear destructive similarities between the above emotional decision
and the equally
simpleminded decision of the US Senate to impose further economic sanctions on Russia, this time
explicitly tying them to penalizing of European companies which do business with Russia – moreover,
in a clear attempt to stop the latter from proceeding with the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project.
This, in turn, is clearly an attempt by the USA to make Europe a captive market for its own energy
products, in the form of shipborne LNG. Significantly, that goal is also finally becoming clear to
Europe; or at least to the parts of it that matter, such as Germany (thanks for the tip, James!)
Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's energy
market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening European
energy options.
The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion
for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into
the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with
it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help
supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would
help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against
it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through
Ukraine's pipeline system. But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded
its tariff-free status as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade
goods into the Russian market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not
be able to compete on economically-favourable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick
when construction of the South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about
$2 billion annually in transit fees. But
pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans
were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was
not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.
Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important,
Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because
(a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine
loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical
reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned
into a wall.
Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded to
announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press
will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential
to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently
so that Europe continues to evolve
ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which
was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas
for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the
Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.
But we knew this was coming, didn't we? Yes, we did, because as recently as last month, Democratic
senator Jean Shaheen, who sits on the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on European Affairs, announced
that the United States was
considering involving itself in the Nord Stream II pipeline project , with a view to killing
it stone dead. The purpose, as already mentioned, is to make way for LNG cargoes to Europe, cutting
Russia out of the business, on the assumption that without energy sales the Russian economy will
crumble and the country will collapse. Destroying Russia remains Washington's overriding strategic
objective.
So the stakes are high; high enough to provide context for Washington's bizarre and aggressive
behavior, and for its continued ridiculous insistence that Russia tampered with the 2016 US presidential
election. What are the chances Washington will succeed with its latest adventure in global bullying?
Not good, according to multiple sources. Let's take a look at how Platts views the prospects;
Platts, a division of S&P Global , is
headquartered in London and employs over 1,000 people in more than 15 offices worldwide. These include
global business centers such as New York, Shanghai and Sao Paulo, and major energy centers such as
Houston, Singapore and London, where Platts is based. Having hopefully established the firm's credentials
as someone who knows what they are talking about in the energy business, let's see what Platts has
to say about
the potential American LNG market in Europe . Mmmm .the review is mixed. At the outset, Platts
is admiring of Cheniere Energy's go-to-hell expansion. But a couple of things about that are cause
to curb enthusiasm. One, only 8 American LNG cargoes had gone to Europe so far; that was as of April
this year, when the report was released. Of those, 4 went to Spain, 3 to Portugal and 1 to Italy.
Two, the Iberian Peninsula is acknowledged by Platts as not particularly significant in terms of
gauging Europe's welcome of American LNG.
"Indeed, the fact that Portugal and Spain were the first European countries to import LNG
from the US is telling The Iberian Peninsula is considered an "island market" with poor interconnection
to the rest of Europe, so the delivery of US LNG into the region is not likely to be seen as a
sign that it will take hold in the wider European market."
The same passage points out that Russia does not supply the Iberian Peninsula with pipeline gas,
and so is unlikely to be very concerned about the impact of US LNG on that market.
Three, Cheniere's rapid expansion has come at a terrifying cost, and the company is currently
– as of fall 2016 –
overleveraged
with approximately $20 Billion in long-term debt . It is unprofitable, with interest payments
representing 60% of revenues, the living embodiment of 'bicycle economics'; the second you stop pedaling,
you crash.
For what it's worth, few great business breakthroughs have occurred without risk, and while Cheniere
is plunging ahead with what seems like recklessness, it could just as easily pay off with complete
domination of the North American export market. That's a hell of a debt load, though; not much margin
for bad news. That does expose a flaw in the American strategy, as well – wrestling control of the
European supply market from Russia would be frighteningly expensive.
No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious
exporter it is going to need about
100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years , something which is frankly not practically achievable
considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at
a cost
of about $200 Million apiece . Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money
into them. But we've already somewhat nervously mentioned how much all this is costing – how does
the likely return on investment shape up?
Well, what the fuck? Platts comes right out and says that Russia has the option of cutting
its prices to ensure it undercuts LNG costs in order to keep its share of the European market!
"Russia clearly does have the option to undercut the US LNG price to ensure it keeps its
share of its key European markets and could flood the market with cheap gas, maximizing revenues
and cash flow at a time when producers worldwide are suffering from the impact of such low prices."
So, let me get this straight. All the attempts by the west, led as usual by Washington, to force
energy prices down and keep them low actually benefit Russia by putting the USA in an unacceptable
profit/loss loop so that it cannot afford to sell its LNG to Europe and still make money? That appears
to be pretty much how it shakes out.
"Russia, thanks to the bearish oil price environment and an enhanced export strategy from Gazprom,
increased its exports to Europe by 15% (through the Nord Stream, Yamal, and Brotherhood pipelines)
to 118 Bcm, taking back its place as Europe's largest gas supplier in the process."
Wait! I think I see a solution. All the USA needs to do is apply its global leverage to make energy
costs rise!
"But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing
numbers of US producers into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90
gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy between January 2015 and
the start of August 2016."
Oh, hey; I just realized – if forcing energy prices back up were an option, how is that going
to hamstring an opponent who was already able to undercut you at the lower price, and still turn
a profit?
Platts closes out this dismal synopsis with the consolation prize that, while US LNG is less competitive
with pipeline gas given narrow Henry Hub-NBP spreads, it is coming to Europe regardless. More of
that old American can-do. It will have to be, though, on what is described as a short-run marginal
cost basis. Would you feel comfortable with that forecast if you were carrying, say, $20 Billion
in debt?
And it's not just Platts who sounds a warning; Forbes has a similar, if slightly more mocking
outlook of the situation .
"Most of this is just political posturing and noise. The U.S. is not now and nor will it be
in the near future a key resource for Europe's energy needs According to EIAs Annual Energy Outlook,
published in April, the United States remains a net importer of fuels through 2040 in a low oil
price scenario. In a high oil and gas price scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter
of liquid fuels due to increased production by 2021. A lot can happen in seven years. By then,
Exxon will likely be back to its deal with Rosneft in Russia's Arctic Circle."
As well, Forbes adds the interesting perspective that foreign sales of American gas will be a
tough sell domestically if the pressure remains on the American leadership to achieve greater energy
self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign sources. This situation can only be exacerbated
by a rise in anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to spike if energy prices rise.
But if they stay low, American LNG exports won't make any money. If they go up, pipeline gas will
undercut LNG prices and make it noncompetitive. Jeez, we just seem to be going around in circles.
Say, did you notice that little item in there, in which the author mentions the only possible way
the USA could compete with Russia in the natural gas market in Europe would be if it had national
rights to substantial supplies of gas abroad? Did that give your memory a little tickle, and make
you think of
Burisma Holdings, and Hunter Biden ?
The Brookings Institute, for God's sake,
warned that US LNG could not compete price-wise before the first LNG cargo ever left the USA.
Given its sympathies, it seems probable it was intended as a sobering restraint meant to keep the
United States from doing something stupid that might expose it to failure and even ruin; it is much
less likely to have been an endorsement of Russia's global business practices.
As so often happens, an unhealthy fixation on taking down a largely imagined enemy results in
increased risk-taking and a totally unrealistic appraisal of the likelihood of success – it becomes
worth doing simply to be doing something. The costs in this instance have included the alienation
and infuriating of Germany, the European Union's anchor economy, and angry murmurs from the Gulf
States that Washington negotiated production cuts simply to make its own product more competitive.
All for nothing, as it happens, because a nation with surplus swing production can always undercut
your price, and the nation with the world's lowest production costs should be last on your list of
"People I Want To Start A Price War With".
If you were opposed to official Washington's swaggering, bullying modus operandi , this
whole unfolding of events probably seems pretty delicious to you. But I've saved the most delicious
for last – Trump dares not make any effort to overrule the Senate vote, or get it reframed, because
of the successful media campaign to portray him as Putin's secret agent. Any effort to mollify Germany's
fury will be seized upon by the reality-challenged Democrats as an opportunity to further discredit
the Trump government, by making it appear to be negotiating in Russia's behalf.
One should never underestimate peoples` willingness to spend vast sums of money on worthless projects.
Witness the Canadian government's recent announcement of its plans to increase defense spending
by 70%.
When the dust finally settles, the Chinese will end up on top.
I think you're probably right about that. And if it turns out to be the case, British Columbia
will turn out to be the most progressive province in Canada, with its large numbers of Chinese
citizens and its Chines-language television stations. At bottom I am mostly a peaceful guy and
I don't really care very much who rules the world so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle.
Once I would have argued strongly for American global leadership, based on a perception that
it offered the best chance for prosperity and enlightenment for everyone, but events since have
changed my view. Now I think other countries should be left alone in terms of interference, helped
where you can lend a hand, and global leadership is an unrealistic aspiration for any country
led by humans, since human nature tends to favour self-interest.
I don't know what the Liberals think they are doing, pushing what is essentially an unachievable
Conservative platform where defense is concerned. To what end? So we can interfere more effectively
on the USA's behalf? We have a good military. There's nothing wrong with keeping it up to date
and well-supplied and trained. But a 70% increase is impractical and is only likely to incur the
wrath of the non-military portion of the electorate, since the money has to come from somewhere.
I hadn't been aware of the connection between the sanctions and LNG, so thanks for pointing that
out.
Meanwhile, I read this:
'Germany and Austria on Thursday sharply criticized the U.S. Senate's plan to add sanctions
on Russia, describing it as an illegal attempt to boost U.S. gas exports and interfere in Europe's
energy market. [ ]
"We cannot accept a threat of extraterritorial sanctions, illegal under international law,
against European companies that participate in developing European energy supplies," [German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement].
"Europe's energy supply is Europe's business, not that of the United States of America."'
After all, many other European leaders have publicly clamored for U.S. LNG imports as a
way to ease their dependence on Gazprom.
Who? The Baltics? Thanks for that. It's mostly a rehash of the other article, but it does include
some interesting insights, and it has a little more credibility than ZeroHedge, although there's
little in that with which I can find fault and its breaking news is usually accurate.
That the EU's energy policies are completely outside the USA's remit is correct, but it's a
surprise to hear someone of Gabriel's stature actually say it. It seems the USA has decided that
forcing Germany to abandon its support for the project is worth trying. That will turn out to
be a disastrous mistake, because the business community in Germany contains some of America's
staunchest supporters, while anti-Americanism among the German population – especially its youth
– is a growing problem. This will do nothing to help it, and it most certainly is not going to
persuade Germany to order American LNG.
I urge you to digest the Platts Report in detail, at your leisure – it's illuminating, and
I'm sure you will note that Russia's LNG export capability is already far, far ahead of the USA's.
So even if pipeline gas proved only competitive with LNG, why would anyone depend on supplies
which have to cross the ocean rather than supplies that can come from Kaliningrad?
She's funny: "How can you shout about the transition to renewable, environmentally safe energy
and at the same time make plans to increase gas flows into Europe?"
Uhh, Zhenichka, Russia is part of Europe, you can shout about it if you are increasing your
energy dependence on both, and if one pipeline is simply replacing another. That's how. That was
easy.
"Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares belong
to Gazprom."
Because GazProm is paying $$$ for it. Zhenichka, in a Capitalist Society, those who pay for
the shares, get the shares. Did I solve that mystery for you?
"Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares
belong to Gazprom."
There is nothing mysterious about it; in fact, it is typical Guardian dishonesty. The Nord
Stream II Project originally included minority shareholders
as shown here . Then Poland introduced its anti-monopoly action and announced the pipeline
could not be built. The partners dropped out, and left Gazprom to take the heat alone. When Poland
failed in its bid to stop the project and it became clear the EU was all out of arrows – having
never had a defensible legal basis – the partners hopped back on, but as investors only. I daresay
they stand to make a good return on their investment even without being shareholders. Meanwhile,
American meddling is only likely to make Europeans grateful attempts to stop the pipeline failed.
I would not like to see their reaction if it ever became clear their governments had committed
them to paying higher gas prices just to spite Russia, particularly in view of the USA's limited
ability to provide reliable and constant supply.
The Guardian is just being a good American footsoldier, and trying to throw mud in the works
for Uncle Sam.
Beautiful article, and great timing Mark! I love it. This was one of the dumbest bills ever passed.
It aimed at Russia, but it's just a take down of Germany. Reminds me of a recent Russian joke:
Obama: "America is mighty! Because of us, Russia's Economy is in ruins!"
Poroshenko: "not Russia's, sir. Ukraine's."
Obama: "Who gives a shit! It's in ruins!"
Also, here's what I'm wondering – can't Russia deliver it by truck or train? Won't that still
be less expensive than delivering it by ship?
Nordstream 2 is primarily a gas pipeline project under the Baltic Sea.
The main attraction of Nordstream 2 is it avoids transit through countries where tolls and
transit fees would have to be paid, whether through land-based pipes, truck or train, and all
these expenses added to the eventual cost that would be paid by the end consumer (ie the general
public). Plus trucks and trains can be held up or subjected to attacks and gas in land-based pipelines
can be siphoned off and diverted as was being done when the gas was passing through Ukraine originally.
No such problems if the gas were being delivered through underwater pipelines though we can be
sure that Swedish naval submarines (how many of those are there – one?) will be watching them
very closely for phantom Russian subs.
Ah, I thought UCGS' original comment referred to your original post, not the one you sent at 5:58
pm yesterday.
Wouldn't transporting LNG by underground pipeline under its own pressure be a less risky and
cheaper option than sending it by train? Trains carrying LNG can only carry so much and have to
be specially adapted to transporting it. Plus they share rail networks with other trains so there
are issues like how saturated the rail networks supporting LNG rail traffic, other cargo traffic
and passenger traffic become, and the pressure this puts on drivers and maintenance of railway
tracks, and building more rail lines in and through areas where pipelines could be laid down instead.
It's possible; I'm afraid I don't know enough about it. It seems that when they speak of an LNG
'train', it refers to the liquefaction
and purification facility , not a transport vehicle. In order to transport LNG it must be
liquefied, which implies freezing it to below -161C. Naturally it must be maintained at a temperature
which guarantees its stability as a liquid, until it is appropriate to return it to its gaseous
form for use in that form. That's the purpose of the huge
container vessels on an LNG tanker – you have to get it cold and then keep it cold.
I just don't know how you would do that in a pipeline. And obviously it would be wildly impractical
for a train, I don't know what the hell I thought I was talking about. It could be done, but why?
You'd need a hundred miles of teeny little flatcar-sized container vessels to equal what you can
transport in an LNG carrier.
Your pipeline would have to originate at an LNG 'train' and terminate at another, somewhere
else, so that the liquefaction/gasification process could be practically carried out, much as
current NG pipelines use pumping stations. But you would also have to keep the LNG below -160C
all the time it was in the pipeline. That's probably physically possible, too, if expense is no
consideration, but it seems terribly impractical when NG already goes by pipeline safely at a
fraction of what it would cost to transport LNG the same way.
Ah, I see now of course you wouldn't need to transport NG in liquid form under 160C through
pipelines. To transport it by ship or train though, it must be in liquefied form, presumably because
as a liquid NG can be measured and quantified, and then exporters can work out how much they can
charge for producing and transporting LNG. Not to mention of course that transporting commodities
in gaseous form by train and ship is harder and riskier than transporting them as liquids.
As well, it needs to be liquefied in order to be compressed, to
get the volumes
you are looking for . One of those container vessels full of uncompressed NG wouldn't be much
more than a good-sized European town would need for its barbecues.
LNG achieves a higher reduction in volume than compressed natural gas (CNG) so that the
(volumetric) energy density of LNG is 2.4 times greater than that of CNG or 60 percent that of
diesel fuel. This makes LNG cost efficient to transport over long distances where pipelines do
not exist. Specially designed cryogenic sea vessels (LNG carriers) or cryogenic road tankers are
used for its transport. LNG is principally used for transporting natural gas to markets, where
it is regasified and distributed as pipeline natural gas.
That does highlight, as well, that if you can use road tankers there really is no reason you
could not use trains. But anywhere it is practical to use trains or road transport, you would
be asking yourself, "why can't I use a pipeline here?"
The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.
This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an
adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope
that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners.
The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR),
100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.
They're quite the Gordian Tits!
Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal
dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention
that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared
to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental
interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?
So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is
its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at
any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or
the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including
those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as
a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only
value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free
public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.
"Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's
energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening
European energy options."
"Invisible Hand of the Market" [nod, nod].
"And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would help to finance Ukraine's transition
to a powerful western fulcrum "
At first I read it as "western furuncle". That's what it became in the end.
First Rule of the Ukraine: "Every Peremoga turns into Zrada".Want to hear about yet another
zrada ? Russia (okay – Mikhail Friedman) bought a German firm Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk
(RWE) for $5.72 blns in 2015
. Why it's important? Well, because this firm carries out the reverse gas transition to the
Ukraine, thus ensuring its [ha-ha, sorry, sorry!] "Energy Independence" which was officially
proclaimed in the same 2015 A.D.
"No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be
a serious exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something
which is frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at
a cost of about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough
money into them.
And usual stuff, said by the people who believe that the Free Market will "Get the Things Straight"
without governmental meddling. Like, Musk will invent cheap multi-use drone-rackets which will
deliver gas to the clients across the Ocean. Why not?! They believe in all kinds of stupid stuff
already!
The article is fresh breeze of actual facts and hard data – not your usual hurr-durring opinion
pieces, passed as "analytics" by the esteemed think-tankers.
Thanks very much, NS!! I read a book some time ago which used newspaper and wire reports of the
various times to thoroughly debunk most of the incidents of ships and aircraft 'disappearing without
a trace' in the Bermuda Triangle. In incidents which resulted in total losses of the crew, the
author also offered reasonable explanations for what likely happened. I have sailed through it
many times myself and observed nothing untoward, although that does not mean much considering
the amount of marine traffic which routinely does the same without incident.
Owners of LNG Carriers likewise play up how safe they are, and to the best of my knowledge
there has never been a serious accident. However, on the scale of supply the USA is suggesting
it wishes to achieve for itself, there could be no days taken off for bad weather, and carriers
would have to transit the North Atlantic in winter – which is not generally a fun place to be.
Most of my concern with the shipped method is its inherent unreliability compared with pipeline
gas.
"But Gazprom could block a lot of those cargoes by stepping up export volumes and selling them
at prices below what can be achieved by U.S. LNG. Gazprom can export pipeline gas to Europe for
$3.50 per million Btu (MMBtu) while American LNG would need prices of $4 to $5/MMbtu. Currently,
Gazprom sells gas to Europe at a price of about $5.80/MMBtu on average, but could lower the price
to beat U.S. LNG"
I do not see how the USA could begin to economically prevail over the Russians in a
"gas' war..given the above numbers.
"Of course, viewed another way, the growing U.S. export capacity – the mere existence of a
competing source of supply – should push down the price that Gazprom is able to charge, a victory
for Europe and a blow to Gazprom. Without U.S. LNG, its proponents argue, Russia would not be
forced to accept lower prices. "It's the start of the price war between U.S. LNG and pipeline
gas," said Thierry Bros, an analyst at Société Générale, according to the WSJ."
Moreover doesn't keeping a lid (cap) on what the Russians can charge for Gazprom gas ipso facto
prevent the Americans from competitively pricing their LNG product..particularly in view of the
first quote????
Either I'm a little dense today,or the American strategy here makes no sense whasoever.!!!!
The latter – the American strategy makes no sense, and its proponents are so high on can-do that
you might have to shoot them to get them down. The USA cannot supply either the volume or the
consistency of supply to snatch the gas market from Russia, and that must be evident to all but
the crazy. As usual, Washington just hopes to get itself into the mix so it will have a seat at
the table, because it cannot bear being left out of things and has long been of the opinion that
America makes its own reality. Once again, if America owned or controlled substantial gas reserves
on the continent and it were practical for the USA to run its own pipeline to Europe, it might
be in with a chance if it had sufficient supply, and it is attempts to do that that we should
be watching out for. There was speculation much earlier that control of substantial gas holdings
was exactly what Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden were up to in Ukraine, but gas extraction is
not practical there right now and id assay results had been positive you can bet there would be
a lot more American pressure to bring the war to a close.
On that note, I noticed over at Sputnik yesterday that Turchynov was pressuring Poroshenko
to bag the ATO and turn it into a full-press military operation, which is just what recent reports
said they did not dare to do in case the Ukrainian Army loses. The same report said Poroshenko
is about to sign legislation which orders by decree that Donbas resume its place as part of Ukraine.
If they say "Pound sand up your ass" as we know they will, Poroshenko may have little alternative
to throwing everything he has at them. Of course, I can't find it now; I knew I should have drawn
attention to it when I saw it.
I assume the (shipped) American LNG would have to be regasified at a european import terminal.
Consulting page six at the link, is it not problematic to then transport the regasified lng product
to its (receiving) nation destination. The whole scheme smacks of going around the well to get
an expensive cup of water!!!!!
http://documents.jdsupra.com/c6c4403f-ad9f-4740-b184-9fc1f88550ab.pdf
The liquid LNG can only be unloaded at an LNG terminal, and so far as I am aware a feature of
them is that they are connected to a gas hub, so that they can regasify the product directly into
the system.
What I do not understand is why Russians can't increase natural gas consumption dramatically and
need to export that much: is it so difficult to build several large chemical plants, increase
usage in city transport as less polluting fuel to 100%, promote dual fuel private cars, etc.
In this case they can export saved oil instead using regular tankers which is much simpler
then LNG.
I think the current suppression of oil prices by Wall Street (and the new US method of production
using along with production of shale oil a parallel production stream of junk bonds which will
never be repaid) can't last forever. "Break even" oil price for most shale wells is probably over
$60 per barrel. If not $80.
Also without capital investment the annual decline of conventional fields is around 5% a year
(most of those fields are really old). Which means approximately 5 million barrels per day are
taken off the market automatically each year (no OPEC action is needed), if zero capital investment
are done.
Of course Sechin is IMHO a corrupt player here, who cares mostly about his own pocketbook (and
stupidly increased investment just before the crash, which later required bailout of the company
by the government), but still Russian government has the means to enforce its will even on rogue
players.
"... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
"... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
"... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
"... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
"... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
"... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
"... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
"... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
"... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
"... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
"... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
"... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
"... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
"... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
"... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
"... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
"... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
"... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
"... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
"... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
"... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
"... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
"... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
"... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
"... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
"... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
"... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
"... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
"... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
"... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
"... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
"The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants,
his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can
claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the
most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed
to a military confrontation with Russia."
- Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site
Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government,
treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In
fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.
Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that
Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:
"Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed
with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't
personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case
on him," Comey said." (Politico)
So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with
Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1?
His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the
2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political
elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not
guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.
What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know
that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue
when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind
or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?
Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey,
Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out."
But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?
Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence
Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia
probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."
A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours
of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?
Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over
Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia
to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce
the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before,
it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much
damage as possible on Trump and his administration.
Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?
It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started
recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in
his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the
goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes
of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."
Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the
elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as
possible on the target of a political smear campaign.
Isn't that what Comey was really up to?
Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?
"There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some
facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in
dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration
during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and
indefinite detention.
On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous
memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of
the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the
new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.
In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other
forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless
wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director",
ACLU)
Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including)
torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and
honor?
It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.
Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he
did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton?
In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?
I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager
to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just
protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?
In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation
with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about
that for a minute. Here's what he said:
"My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine
to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons,
but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel
, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."
Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined
political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective
from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old'
Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into
anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed
at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't
work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it
took.
In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink
slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired
gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off
to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together
his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.
Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.
Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey
to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump
said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.
I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this
type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged
that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if
there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that
out."
Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly
murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan
Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:
"The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the
legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime
by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even
a strong - case for obstruction.
It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate.
However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .
The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The
mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction.
.
It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If
prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or
conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal
cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors
could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.
We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump."
("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald
Trump", USA Today)
The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around
and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records,
bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial
tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches
onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit,
and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should
be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied
until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.
But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?
Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been
deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted
to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment.
Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably
the way this will end.
Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him
to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump.
But it doesn't work.
So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?
Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid
that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon,
firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)
A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political
assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the
appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
How's that for symetry!
Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire
Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful
and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be
fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.
Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven
[ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed
the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump
a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations
with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of
course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire
argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone
with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials.
The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does
not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used
a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving
leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary
by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]
Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and
insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to
launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.
Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering
foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.
Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the
President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.
But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?
Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my
view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country.
At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?
I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that
existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would
become more important than across the Atlantic.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his
betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor
or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would
be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand
Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday
Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.
The endless investigations
can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They
would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump
should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven,
too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to
a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies
down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.
This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.
Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia.
It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign
will of the American People.
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied
us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this
" Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous
criminality.
On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started
seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.
The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous,
defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.
@Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey
was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.
Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can
still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he
hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel
was appointed on false pretext.
Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members
of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote
for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must
go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..
Why should Trump hire his own executioner?
Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing?
Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation.
Why wasn't there an investigation?
Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame
him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.
Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed
to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man
whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein
and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.
If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR
OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
A little discouraged.
Don' t think the swamp is drainable.
Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances.
Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about
swamp.
Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done.
Trump underestimated deep state.
They ARE in charge.
What will the people do ?
Become more apathetic?
Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging.
Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens.
Can't go on as is.
The death by a thousand cuts.
In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey,
Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so,
and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime
associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an
effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults
are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.
I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons
I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha
Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement
made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer
due process in the yankee imperium.
The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged
was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about
what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish
this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break
with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the
Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again,
not a sell-out like Sanders.
Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump.
However, they better start getting on board with him.
They are tied together, whether they like it or not.
what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats
yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail
ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence,
adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the
99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's
puppet masters pulling the strings
IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid
apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign
to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire
is maddening
.
don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct
assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms
of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
.
i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider
that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't
like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
.
come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards
think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
(hint: NOT the libtard side )
"Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's
all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step
in"
The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn
enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially
jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the
electorate position?
I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their
hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of
their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the
great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion
or blackmail scenario.
We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein
(that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab)
and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the
jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky
soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.
Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt.
Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress.
Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming
them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or
Washington establishment for protection."
He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI.
etc etc.
Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.
Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason
he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there
they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.
@Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements
and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor.
Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.
I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone
is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good
choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes
breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended
up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging
and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.
@Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics
of the set-up with laser-like precision.
We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional
order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but
I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate
of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade"
deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia,
implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State
require to set a soft coup into motion?
Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported
and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on
day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted
to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone
under the guise of openness.
Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit.
Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the
case, out of fear and not allegiance.
Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him
into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to
do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly
from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said
anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely
political.
They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go,
but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection
of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always
open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would
prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would
look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment
line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can
doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on
his opponents..
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
@Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct
targets.)
Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a
much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of
Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.
As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we
got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's
have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve
it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come
out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc.
Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)
JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed
the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K
mark.
"..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all
back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "
YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the
murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.
That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who
recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs
to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumè that him suspect.
"Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's
actions amounted to obstruction of justice."
Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color
revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate
or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using
this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.
Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge
which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result.
The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his
son-in-law deals.
In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival,
by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. Which probably is OK for neocons because
war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the
US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.
BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a
head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office
of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now
reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering
independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.
Headquarters : Washington, D.C.
Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence
matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.
Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.
This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt
to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible
digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid
Hillary hacks for the job ;-).
But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the
new level?
Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about
civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably
guessed right:
"... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
"... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
"... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
"... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
"... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
"... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists
etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs.
They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to
s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello
lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying
by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not
– but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to
say the least.
That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit
alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that
have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense?
b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story?
e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.
Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously
read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin
Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)
My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure,
innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have
access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there,
then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid
, to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks,
accidents or incomptence.
Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the
same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative
news/websites/blogs'.
Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who
(1) are cleared
to the appropriate level, and
(2) have the need to know.
It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret
security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties
related to it.
Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a
Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to
the addressee.
I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus.
Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor
at the time, not even a permanent employee.
Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic
surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.
But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense
systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area,
if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign
leaders and the American electorate
"The event was a political fraud from beginning to end. The basic thread running through all of
the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party-a party of Wall
Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a "people's party."
LOL!!! Totally spot the F on!!!!!
"Sanders lent his support to the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the Democrats and the military-intelligence
apparatus, which sees Russia as the chief obstacle to US imperialism's drive for regime change
in Syria and Iran. "I find it strange we have a president who is more comfortable with autocrats
and authoritarians than leaders of democratic nations," Sanders said. "Why is he enamored with
Putin, a man who has suppressed democracy and destabilized democracies around the world, including
our own?"
Sanders?? No fool like an old fool and tool of TPTB
Oh, I doubt he's a fool; the creed of the western political class is recognition of its own and
their interests over the interests of the majority. It is technically true that Putin is destabilizing
governments around the world – 'democracies', if you will – but it would presuppose that western
leaders are his accomplices. Because it is through them and their crackdowns and restrictions
and surveillance, which they say they must introduce for our own protection (because, you know,
freedom isn't free) that discontent and destabilization are born.
Reply
"... "This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community." ..."
Successive Conservative governments have forced significant cuts on county/city councils who have
passed them on by reducing or stopping services. Looking at the news on Google Nudes UK we find
out that there have long been significant concerns about the fire worthiness of many council run
(though often privately managed) tower blocks and state housing. This will only be bad
for the Conservatives however they try to spin it. It's clear proof that ass-terity kills.
I came across a couple of articles in The London Economic that pointed out the last Labor government
public spending was at a record low of 37% of GDP, the lowest of any government since 1945 and
also perforating Conservative propaganda about spending. Found it:
The London Economic: Next time someone says 'Money Tree' send them this
http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/next-time-someone-says-money-tree-send/05/06/
This underlines Keynes point. Cut the deficit in the good times, spend money in the bad times.
Austerity doesn't work, and this was proved as Keynes economics brought the US out of the great
depression .
Well, for starters, John McCain is a moron who
argued strenuously , in the initial slide of the global financial crisis, for further banking-industry
deregulation.
"This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory
burden imposed on financial institutions One principal reason banks are unable to make loans
is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed
by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and
regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing
regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money
to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community."
You know, I don't believe the great majority of people are aware just what simpletons their
leaders are. We tend to think they have benefited from the very best educations – which, in the
main, they have – and that consequently they are a great deal smarter than everyone else; that's
why they're leaders. I'm sure each has a certain sector or subject in which they are unusually
bright and in which their counsel is wise and informed. But overall, they are no smarter than
you or I and every bit as prone to listen to bad advice or partisan gossip if it suits what they
already believe. Our statues have feet of clay.
Speaking of McCain, remember when he
exuberantly tweeted "Dear Vlad; the Arab Spring is coming to a neighbourhood near you"?
I liked Adajo's response, albeit it came three years later: "Dear John, let's recap: Russia
is stronger than ever, and Mr. Vlad dominates. You destroyed Ukraine for nothing."
"... The bipartisan legislation, which passed with an overwhelming 97-2 vote, slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing them in the future without first receiving congressional approval. ..."
"... Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the measure was endorsed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland). The deal was attached to an Iran sanctions bill that is expected to pass later this week. While top Republican senators had initially wanted to give the White House space to try improving U.S.-Russia relations, but ultimately decided talks with Russia have been moving too slowly. ..."
"... The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," according to the deal's sponsors. ..."
"... The biggest neocon in Congress, John McCain, was delighted with the outcome: "We must take our own side in this fight. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) before the vote. "It's time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action." ..."
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday
approved new sanctions
to punish Russia for "meddling" in the 2016
election.
The bipartisan legislation, which passed with an overwhelming 97-2 vote,
slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing them in
the future without first receiving congressional approval. The only two
senators to vote against the measure were Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul
(R-KY), while Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) abstained.
Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the
Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the measure was
endorsed
by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee)
and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland). The deal was attached to an Iran
sanctions bill that is expected to pass later this week. While top Republican
senators had initially wanted to give the White House space to try improving
U.S.-Russia relations, but ultimately decided talks with Russia have been
moving too slowly.
The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the
territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and
interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," according
to the deal's sponsors.
The amendment also allows "
broad new sanctions on key sectors of
Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways
" and
authorizes "
robust assistance to strengthen democratic institutions and
counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are
vulnerable to Russian aggression and interference
."
New sanctions would be imposed on "
corrupt Russian actors
"
and those "involved in serious human rights abuses," anyone supplying weapons
to the Syrian government or working with Russian defense industry or
intelligence, as well as "those conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf
of the Russian government" and "those involved in corrupt privatization of
state-owned assets."
The biggest neocon in Congress, John McCain, was delighted with the outcome:
"We must take our own side in this fight. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats,
but as Americans," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) before the vote. "It's time to
respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve,
with common purpose, and with action."
As
AP adds
, lawmakers took action against Russia in the absence of a forceful
response from President Donald Trump. While the president has sought to improve
relations with Moscow and rejected the implication that Russian hacking of
Democratic emails tipped the election his way, non-stop "anonymous sources"
have repeatedly leaked "news" to the NYT and WaPo, suggesting Trump colluded
with Russia and/or was being probed by the FBI. Following Comey's testimony,
which confirmed there is no "there" there, the media attacks against Trump have
shifted, and now accuse the president of obstruction of justice and
interference with the FBI's investigation into Mike Flynn.
Speaking earlier on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said
told reporters the Kremlin will hold out with its reaction until the U.S.
decides on new sanctions against Russia.
"We wouldn't like to enter this sanctions spiral again. But that's not our
choice." Indeed, and with the US having made Russia's choice for them, we now
look for Moscow's response.
Incidentally, earlier this week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told
lawmakers that
US allies around the world had asked Washington to
improve relations with Russia
, and warned that further measures
against Moscow could hinder ongoing progress in the fight against terrorism in
Syria.
"I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation
with a single counterpart in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even
South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address your relationship
with Russia, it has to be improved
," Tillerson said on Tuesday,
testifying before the Senate appropriations subcommittee about the proposed
State Department budget.
Unfortunately, for the US Military Industrial Complex, which stands to
profit only in times of (near) war, a detente with Russia, or any other nation
for that matter, is not an option.
... >>> "
US Spends $70 Billion To Influence
Russian Election, Then Admits Its Own Nation Is Insane
..."
... the report ... " ... shockingly states that the
United States has spent between $70-$100 billion to
influence the election outcome in Russia (
https://www.rt.com/politics/391255-upper-house-votes-to-set/
)
... - but then freely admits that the majority of its own
American citizens are actually insane.
... According to this report, the Security Council
today voiced "strong support" for lawmakers who are
launching a dedicated commission to monitor foreign
nations attempts to influence internal Russian politics
and work on proposals to counter and prevent such moves -
and that Speaker Valentina Matviyenko warned was a "grave
threat" as up to $100 billion was sent to Russia from
abroad each year "not for charity and not for social or
medical aid, but for political activities". ...
... To the American people being able to know the truth
about this "fake news" propaganda being filled into their
heads, this report sadly notes, is not to be seen as
nearly all of them, on an hourly basis, are
pummeled with lies and hysteria falsely claiming Russia
interfered in their election
-
when the
facts, instead, prove, beyond all doubt, that the US is
world's largest interferer in the elections of other
nations
(
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18700
),
including last year in Israel where the Obama regime paid
over $350,000 to destroy that nations prime minister (
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/
).
At the exact same time that these American people are
being brainwashed into believing every lie their "fake
news" propaganda media tells them, this report continues,
these people remain unaware that their leftist-communist
"overlords" have classified nearly all of them as being
insane. ... " ...
... is this just a classic case of the "meddler-Pot"
blame-sanctioning the "meddler-Kettle" for what the
meddler-Pot had been known to do? ...
Rand Paul would have been assassinated long
ago if he were elected Potus. Trump has been
bought or simply tricked or forced into
compliance. I suspect the tricked thingy since
the Donald isn't exactly shining,
intellectually, regarding most subjects other
than pussies, women, real estate and
immigration.
Article Title:
Senate Overwhelmingly Approves New
Sanctions To "Punish" Russia
\The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly
approved new sanctions to punish Russia for "meddling" in the 2016
election. The bipartisan legislation, which passed with in a 97-2 vote,
slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing
them in the future without first receiving congressional approval.
My Response:
NOT GOOD!!! I really hate where this is
headed!!!!!!!
In a society where all lies, all deceptions, all corruptions are
accepted, that society will lose control of everything. Chaos will begin
to take over, and the only way that chaos will be slowed down will be
when dictatorial control, or maybe even a police state is formed, where
thought and behavior is fixed, and anybody out of bounds is punished.
Eventually, the chaos has to be controlled. We're not headed toward
socialism; we could very well be headed toward a dictatorship in our
world. Is this hard to grasp?
Remember the America that was, some of you? This is not a Christian
nation; there's no such thing. It never has been a Christian nation. Even
the founding fathers of America were not true Christians but they did
understand that Christianity was a fixed necessity because it established
divine law; and when people knew that this was law from God, it
controlled their behavior. Biblical ethics, biblical patterns of morality
were honored, respected, and expected. Marriage, family, virtue, work,
relationships, success were all connected to noble ideals that are found
in Scripture.
That's long gone and unlikely to ever appear in the
lifetime of anybody reading this because evil men just get worse and
worse.
They'd have done the same to him. Trump should definitely listen to him on
foreign policy, but the fact is the MIC is exerting MASSIVE pressure in that
arena.
I don't. They have not even told us why they know that Russia interfered with
the election, as opposed to leaks interfering with the election. Even if they
did interfere, foreign policy issues of any kind other than protecting
Westerners against terrorist mass murders did not alter the outcome of the
election. It was bread-and-butter issues that won it for Trump, along with
resistance to the multiculturalist bashing by the ism patrol, which is really
just an agressive form of snobbery.
"... "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," ..."
"... "broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways" ..."
"... "robust assistance to strengthen democratic institutions and counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are vulnerable to Russian aggression and interference." ..."
"... "corrupt Russian actors" ..."
"... "involved in serious human rights abuses," ..."
"... "those conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf of the Russian government" ..."
"... "those involved in corrupt privatization of state-owned assets." ..."
"... "I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation with a single counterpart in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address your relationship with Russia, it has to be improved," ..."
"... "ridiculous pretexts" ..."
"... "[Members of] Congress try to tie the president's hands, trying to remove his ability to make foreign policy, and they are doing it for a simple reason – they do not want the relations with Russia to improve," ..."
"... "Republicans are launching a pre-emptive strike against their own president." ..."
"... "the whole pretext of the sanctions is absurd," ..."
"... "Nobody would go down to the Senate of the House floor and say what exactly did they do, how did they meddle in our relations, because nobody knows," ..."
"... "an entire inter-agency intelligence community review" ..."
"... "few hand-picked analysts who had come to this conclusion." ..."
"... "Who is in Syria illegally occupying territory, who is violating Syrian sovereignty? The US military," he said, dubbing the sanctions "a reflection of lack of any creativity" in the Senate. ..."
A measure codifying into law the US sanctions against Russia was approved in the Senate by a veto-proof
majority of 97 to 2. The amendment requires congressional review before any sanctions are lifted,
and allows for new ones. Amendment 232 has been attached to Bill 722 imposing sanctions against Iran,
which the Senate is currently debating.
Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs Committee, the
measure was endorsed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and ranking
member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland).
The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity
of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing
aggression in Syria," according to the sponsors.
The Senate adopted amendment #232 as modified (Russia sanctions) to S. 722, Iran Sanctions,
97-2.
Under the amendment, any executive sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration cannot
be lifted without congressional review.
The amendment also allows "broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including
mining, metals, shipping and railways" and authorizes "robust assistance to strengthen democratic
institutions and counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are vulnerable
to Russian aggression and interference."
New sanctions would be imposed on "corrupt Russian actors" and those "involved in
serious human rights abuses," anyone supplying weapons to the Syrian government or working with
Russian defense industry or intelligence, as well as "those conducting malicious cyber activity
on behalf of the Russian government" and "those involved in corrupt privatization of state-owned
assets."
Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) voted against the amendment, while Chris
Van Hollen (D-Maryland) abstained.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told lawmakers that US allies around the world
had asked Washington to improve relations with Russia, and warned that further measures against Moscow
could hinder ongoing progress in the fight against terrorism in Syria.
"I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation with a single counterpart
in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address
your relationship with Russia, it has to be improved," Tillerson said on Tuesday, testifying
before the Senate appropriations subcommittee about the proposed State Department budget.
'Pre-emptive strike against Trump'
The executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams, told
RT he believes that sanctions were imposed under "ridiculous pretexts" and are ultimately
designed to hinder any attempts of the current US administration to improve Russia-US ties.
"[Members of] Congress try to tie the president's hands, trying to remove his ability to make
foreign policy, and they are doing it for a simple reason – they do not want the relations with Russia
to improve," McAdams told RT. He added that by striking an agreement with the Democrats on the
issue "Republicans are launching a pre-emptive strike against their own president."
As far as the formal justification of yet another anti-Russian move is concerned, McAdams believes
that "the whole pretext of the sanctions is absurd," in particular, the refrain of Russia's
alleged meddling in the US elections.
"Nobody would go down to the Senate of the House floor and say what exactly did they do, how
did they meddle in our relations, because nobody knows," McAdams said.
A US intelligence report, from which stem the bulk of allegations implicating Russia could not
be regarded as "an entire inter-agency intelligence community review" as claimed, he noted,
because it was compiled by a "few hand-picked analysts who had come to this conclusion."
Citing Russia's alleged "aggression" in Syria as one of the reasons to roll over a new round of
sanctions is another example of the inadequacy of the measure, McAdams argued.
"Who is in Syria illegally occupying territory, who is violating Syrian sovereignty? The
US military," he said, dubbing the sanctions "a reflection of lack of any creativity"
in the Senate.
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
"... "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access." ..."
"... "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" ..."
"... "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016." ..."
"... Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia." ..."
"... Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents. ..."
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the
President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate
of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware
that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY:"In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves.
We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct
access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR:"Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY:"It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had
gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn
Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers,
by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence
community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief
the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from
Consortium News .
The narrative blaming Russia for the Qatar split does not have any evidence to substantiate it,
and Sen. Warren went out of her way to ensure none might be revealed today. It is worth pointing
out, however, that President Trump personally took credit for the split himself when it first happened,
crediting it to his visit to Saudi Arabia just days prior.
Rather, it originates from Qatari state media having quoted the Qatari Emir saying something the
Saudis didn't like, and subsequently attributing the quote to "hackers." US media outlets saw the
word hackers, and naturally assumed Russia, and it appears that as with everything, this has quickly
become something everyone is willing to assume is the case.
Mattis went on in the course of his testimony to insist he's seen "no indication" that Russian
President Vladimir Putin wanted to have a positive relationship with the United States, apparently
taking no note of the several times when Putin literally said that around the 2016 election, and
was openly courting diplomatic normalization with the US. Rather, Mattis insists Putin has "
chosen to be competitive ."
The Senate is said to be moving forward on a new round of sanctions against Russia, and some legislation
to prevent the Trump Administration from easing the sanctions in any way. There appears to be little
interest in gathering actual evidence against Russia to justify this move, and rather seem confident
that they can just keep everyone assuming allegations in the media are true.
"... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
"... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
"... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
"... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
"... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
"... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
"... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir
Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017
| 7080
90
Dear NBC News Team,
Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic
level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.
A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television
channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One
was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that
you put on air for the American audience. (
Watch here, beginning 4 minutes
into the program .)
The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said
was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political
opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut
to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed
by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations
point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to
question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges.
He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas
to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.
In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact
a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion
in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.
Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is
coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh
after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes,
ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.
have a nice day
Gilbert Doctorow
Brussels
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book
Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States
Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.
The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of
any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended
to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be
tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war
with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of
office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do
with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out
all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian"
who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch
as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides
of the oceans.
You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir
Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles.
Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those
of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said.
see more
Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why
Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the
beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read
a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent
a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going
to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to
intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ...
and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill
even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War
against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped
off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing
so ... see more
rosewood11
Peter Paul 1950 •
5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned
the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never
seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right?
see more
One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of
all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first
heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High
Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through
the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that
there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all
the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation
... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see
more
Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told,
says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady
but has to tow- the-line. tom
•
6 days ago
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be".
Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an
interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya
Pypkin •
6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification
by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but
smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still
alive regret.
Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was
not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and
important things while life was stable and predictable.
Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial
front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth
to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while
losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant.
AMHants •
6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could
be blamed on Russia!...
But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast
for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts,
because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could
portend for Americans, is mounting daily...
Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what
the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full
and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for
a journalist this Kelly is!
The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just
a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens
have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist,
neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization,
outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change
things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything
anywhere. Robert Keith •
6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking
head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV
mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to
the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very
skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular
basis it seems.
If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across
very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his
performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.
Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this
wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to
do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during
the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".
No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any
way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know
it already.
The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it
is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere.
see more
"... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."
*Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd
arrived in his 2001 book "Après L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du système américain" ("After
the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily
on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors:
https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.
Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be
thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view
point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native
language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew
a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.
We are all wondering, of course "when". ?
It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled
with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a
massive physical break down and die.
It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when.
Nofearorfavor
Isabella Jones •
5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition
was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However
found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping
the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly
tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...
My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long
the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only
allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would
be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a
day with her.
In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings,
etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling'
as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect
Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it.
see more
Unlike
in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news
in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg.
see more
nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.
Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the
west.
Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten,
they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping
rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is
the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more
Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before
these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out
of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump
himself. Playing the Elder.
"... Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server. ..."
Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid
Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa
sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server.
"In the US, talk of a Donald Trump-Russian government collusion against Hillary Clinton gets
more attention than some other possibilities. Cyber-security developer John McAfee said: "If it
looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians." There's a wave of
anti-Russian sentiment, as evidenced by the lack of US mass media and body politic condemnation
to former National Security Agency (NSA) Director James Clapper's bigoted anti-Russian comment.
The subject of anti-Russian propaganda brings to mind the pro-Kiev regime leaning Atlantic
Council and its cyber-security member CrowdStrike. Entities like them are silent in instances
like when Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko falsely stated that Jews in Crimea are prohibited
from observing their faith, since that area's reunification with Russia."
James Clapper, former Director of the CIA who lied directly to Congress about whether it was spying
on American citizens has very recently said to the Australian Press Club that "I think you compare
the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we're confronting now." and
"Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don't know the answer to that. I think it's vital,
though, we find that out.".
As has become textbook with modern press roll-overs, they are trying to substitute momentum for
evidence, and achieve critical mass without having to cite any real facts you could hang your
hat on later. Everyone involved will shake their heads as if coming out of a dream, and say, "Well,
we all thought "
At one point Stone watches Dr. Strangelove with Putin
After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring
message. "The thing is that since that time little has changed," Putin says.
"The only difference is that the modern weapon systems have become more
sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the
inability to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has
become even more difficult, more dangerous."
Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an
adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding
the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift."
The media is a privatized neoliberal corporate parasite. It has
only one function extracting money from the host. It is amoral and
pragmatically political. It will say anything to make money.
We accidentally caught Stephen Colbert interviewing Oliver Stone last
evening on a Late Show – I was disgusted by Colbert's treatment of Stone
– also disgusting was the audience (obviously coached and organised to
jeer and boo). No doubt Colbert was under orders from his corporate
bosses – though maybe that's being too kind to him. Controlling the minds
of the masses!
Just watched that and it was awful, but also very clarifying.
Colbert's selling out just like Maddow did – she was actually pretty
good on Air America a decade ago when she had a show with Daily Show
creatrix Liz Winstead.
Colbert and the audience just assume demonization of Putin is
justified while being oblivious to the log (or forest might be more
apt) in Uncle Sugar's eye. Wonder how they would describe him if
Russian domestic security forces routinely gunned down hundreds or
thousands of Russian citizens every year. Some might consider that a
sign of a very oppressive government .
Frustrating to watch people fall for this villain du jour schtick
every single time.
I haven't paid attention to Colbert since 2013, when he played a
role in the attempt to resuscitate Kissinger's public image (he
later allowed Kissinger onto his show for a friendly interview).
Oddly I can't seem to find the full video itself, but here's an ABC
report on it:
I saw a preview of this on twitter recently. There is the analogous
"President" of a country, driving himself, a body guard, and Oliver Stone
down the highway. It was such a typical scene, no black limos, no cargo
helicopters, no long walks and slow camera pans, just some dudes in traffic.
I was wondering if Seinfeld was in the back.
"National Democrats hoping to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations
into political victory in the Midwest may want to take a different tack" [
NBC ]. "The party has targeted Iowa's 1st Congressional District, currently represented by
Republican Rod Blum, as a battleground in the 2018 house race. But in the days leading up to former
FBI Director James Comey's blockbuster testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, residents
made it clear that while news of the scandal billowing around President Donald Trump's White House
was impossible to avoid, it was far from their biggest concern. Most constituents interviewed
by NBC News said that they need to see fire before they come to any conclusions about the Russia
investigation and added that they are beginning to tune out news connected to it because of fatigue.
Voters here are more concerned about issues like health care, veterans' benefits, Planned Parenthood
and infrastructure."
UPDATE "Virginia governor says Russia was helped by 'treasonous' Americans who gave 'these
people a roadmap'" [
The Week ]. Making it all the more remarkable that some kind soul in the intelligence community
hasn't risked their career to expose the traitors by coming forward with evidence (Reality Winner
seems to be a kind soul, and she did risk her career,
but the evidence part ) We really do need more than the word of a
corrupt Clintonite - sorry for the redundancy -
blowhard on this.
Our Famously Free Press
"And then there's the dirty little secret that every journalist knows - Trump stories drive
ratings and clicks. The word 'Trump' in a headline vastly increases its chances of getting attention.
(We're all guilty; see above.)" [Margeret Sullivan,
WaPo ]. After shredding the notion of "balance," Sullivan considers what the press should
do. For example:
Do news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable
hot takes about the personality-driven dust-up of the moment?
Harvard professor Thomas E. Patterson, the study's author, sees trouble on that last point.
"The press is focusing on personality, not substance," he said recently on public radio's
"On the Media" program. And that reflects "not a partisan bias but a journalistic bias," the
tendency to seek out conflict. (No mystery there - it's more interesting.)
Trump stories are cheap to produce, because they generally don't require reporting. Or editing,
apparently:
"... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
"... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
"... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
"... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
"... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
"... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to
go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if
their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed
NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian
President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking
Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.
In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US
government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all
are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is
so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.
For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved
in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI
and NSA had been "handpicked."
On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan
confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community
assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.
But
those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to
repeat the false claim. In
comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a
flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator
and Secretary of State, is hard to get."
A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies
in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her,
replying instead:
"They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have
talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed
me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably
better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he
and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."
As I noted in a
Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge
that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president
has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic
emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has
been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.
"At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting
or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis
added]
Explaining the Technology
More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables
hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the
hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will
think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and
subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions.
"
Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing
the source of cyber attacks.
"Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario?
In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to
put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia.
Can't you imagine it happening? I can.
"Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination
was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule
it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities
available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while
making a reference to Russia in the process. "
Kelly: "Let's move on."
However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well
not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had
created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did
it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).
The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the
"Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required
the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money
and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians
hacked into Democratic Party emails.
In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually
one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper
– the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan
acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.
There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable
discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist
on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own
proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.
The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think
tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council
senior fellow and the
co-founder of Crowdstrike.
Strange Oversight
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment
battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to
insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy
to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed
on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee
Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever
have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide
you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have
access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class
entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
COMEY: "Correct."
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the
time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand
the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps,
NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might
have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who
very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high
esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an
oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman
on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total
of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium
News .
It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests
in Moscow
and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for
10 days.
(The protests began on Sept. 17, 2011. The first mention I can find
on the All Things Considered archive was
Sept. 27
.)
"... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
"... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
"... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
"... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
"... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S.
attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over
"tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved
from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but
Russians, Iranians and others operate.
In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on
opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise
under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something
awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay
the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.
The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued "
Human Slaughterhouse:
Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government
executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons
incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack
on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though
neither of them is credible.
[3]
Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is
based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent
of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse
. See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research,
May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306
.)
The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably
negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based
on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of
others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,
Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017),
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA
officer Philip Giraldi);
Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's
Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/
(The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf
and the second, an addendum to the first, is at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view
);
aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/
. (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the
[UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their
claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and
more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html
.").
It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued,
the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.
Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were
hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election.
It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last
election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know
pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking
and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play
to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then
explained the difference between leaking and hacking.
[5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/
.
There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern
and William Binney observed:
The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha"
moment, as President
Donald Trump said he had fired
FBI Director
James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up
story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others
looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with
Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on
no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually
claim to find, in light of this:
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the
agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look
like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example.
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA.
Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls
the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents
required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that
amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState
has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for
'proving' the Russians hacked."
[10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.
The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times
carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad
government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered
political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs
in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior
to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after
meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan
capital.
I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate
insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect,
in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage
in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment,
would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:
"Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were
not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for
one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,'
he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall
and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a
crematorium,' he said."
Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and
I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise,
took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:
"The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May
23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign
ally, into backing away from him."
Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on
the Hudson typically takes.
[As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily
Fox News program:]
"The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon.
The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more
consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which
we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests
on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."
Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian
diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr.
Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic
eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian
president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:
Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon
in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning
language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy
and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height
of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by
Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media
voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices
fresher, more diverse and more agile.
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears
at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .
I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best
to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia.
This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries
of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which
can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition
and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective,
form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.
In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign
policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which
the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful
combination:
"What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually,
by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of
gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent
even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting
their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley
Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the
escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance
to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns,
stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have
posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!
Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971
and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).
[8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed
the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials
from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
[13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been
a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation,
and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been
a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was
posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).
[15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor
Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at
https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY
.
Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution"
scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding
of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?
This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter
much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to
engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary
and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.
Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other
"very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.
To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario
with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's
book.
Empire of Lies is a 2008
thriller novel
written by Andrew
Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by
Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in
an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it
by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the
term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined
as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample
of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha
proved to be a real artist in this art.
Notable quotes:
"... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
"... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
"... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
"... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
"... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
"... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
"... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
"... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
"... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it
is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.
One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition
of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values
- to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and
has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the
last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never
tires of pointing out, "We won."
In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr.
Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory
in America. This is a good thing.
The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump
and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the
election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to
task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration,
the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged
to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?
The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly,
in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression,
but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them.
He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and
got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made
him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.
Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is
rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites
people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong,
only winners and losers.
Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps
to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance
and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.
In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor
Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely
by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically,
that their politics are based on values and principles.
This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism,"
the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians
retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption,
they claim that the entire world is corrupt.
This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration
for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded
Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"
To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their
country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy
to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea
that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...
The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition
activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast
Asia.
Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate",
and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried
bc a Bill of rights argument would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo
(the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well. ..."
"... As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise. ..."
"... This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed". ..."
Published on Friday, by
Consortium News Mike Morell's Kill-Russians Advice Washington's foreign policy hot shots
are flexing their rhetorical, warmongering muscles to impress Hillary Clinton, including ex-CIA acting
director Morell who calls for killing Russians and Iranians by
Ray McGovern
33 Comments A closer look at the record of Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, is
warranted. (Photo: AP) Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative
rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally
likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so
it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson,
and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose - having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell - performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview
, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled
to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points , included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous
Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time , Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [non-existent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong - that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time , he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed
the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until
moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
'Wisdom' on China
For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie
show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis. Addressing
the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main "negative:"
"We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific. What does that mean?
It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip
yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have
to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do. And both sides see all of
three of those things. That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. "
Those who got to the end of Morell's book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page
325:
"The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that each country needs
to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other).
Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern
weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. "
Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those
whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms
traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton,
as well.
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarre-ness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an
agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
I will watch for this creep to show up in Clinton's administration as these two seem to be peas
in a pod.
Hillary has a hard time relating to normal people on the campaign trail because her center of
focus is in foreign policy. It stands to reason that she will want people with the kill instinct
around her. Being a neocon at heart, her need for accurate intelligence is small and her desire
has always been to go after Iran for Bibi and Russia, well, just because they are the go to enemy.
Russia is standing in the way of taking out Assad and clearing a path through Syria to Iran.
Rest assured that is a public official in Russia publicly stated to a national TV audience that
Russia needed to start killing Americans so as to send a message, the western media would be in
an uproar proclaiming it as a unacceptable provocation.
Entire hours of broadcasts on multiple "News shows" would invite in pundits to make the most
dire of pronouncements all concluding this showing Russia as a nation seeking war and conflict.
A simple fact. It is the Government of the USA that is the bully here and that same Government
is the greatest threat to world peace on this globe. It is the USA that heads the "Empire of Evil".
If it weren't for the CIA--an organization that passes out licenses to kill the way the old church
of Rome handed out "Indulgences" to its wealthiest donors--someone like Mike Morrell would be
forced to find his calling as a street smart serial killer.
"It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from
a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It's important to keep in mind that the CIA constantly manufactures false cases, false flags,
bogus assassinations, and that makes lying child's play. One does it enough and their conscience
(presuming they had one to begin with) goes cold and callous.
Morrell would be just as comfortable serving Hitler as he would an American dictator or head
of state.
If there weren't entrenched, empowered interests BENT upon war, maniacal minds like that of
Morrell would not be tolerated... nor used.
Someone had to pretend that the false pretexts were true. Imagine if the money spent on searching
for weapons they KNEW didn't exist instead went to improving life for citizens of the targeted
nations? But then, there'd be no terrorism; and without terrorism, how could the now gargantuan
military infrastructure aimed at controlling citizens (as the global elites tighten the fiscal
screws) come into place?
These professional cons and killers (like felons placed into jail cells where they learn from
others how to improve "their craft") gained much from the writings of Goebbels. There must be
an outside enemy threat made existentially real... and then, all Constitutional liberties can
be rescinded under the guise of protecting citizens.
Notice all the recent terrorist events. Some are no doubt real; but others are false flags
and the net impact of all of this is that the entire world is now perceived (by the spooks and
the Pentagon) as a battleground.
And when there are vast, well-organized armies, it creates on the part of those brave enough
to resist, ingenious forms of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, more and more unexpected places will
indeed blow up. Meanwhile, how much $ is dumped into surveillance which NEVER stops these events?
I guess the uniformed spooks are too busy in forums like this one, watching the Left (intellectuals,
poets, labor leaders, and those who refuse to see things the way elites intend for citizens to
see things) and/or watching porn... to notice.
Welcome to theater of the absurd. It's everywhere these days!
This bloke is a terrorist by anybody's dictionary definition. Simple.
The last person who thought that killing Russians was a good idea ended up committing suicide
just before the Russians got to his bunker in Berlin. This Morrell character would have us all
commit nuclear suicide so as to fulfill his insane fantasy.
One stupid (C)ommittee to (I)ntervene (A)nywhere dick dead, wow. How about 'kill'
the Pentagon which seems to be the root of the problem? Not a person but the whole phkn deal.
All those folks could 'maybe' just go 'get a life' instead of being terminal perverts.
Have you seen this material? It's very compelling:
Yes. This particular interview includes much of what PCR has been discussing for the past many
months. I'm surprised, though, that he left out specifically discussing the U.S. government's
war against alternate currencies to the dollar that resulted in the destruction of Libya (and
the death of Gaddafi) and now all of the covert and overt actions against the BRICS governments.
Articles addressing these continuing issues are normally first published on the following sites:
He may end up paired up with Ted Cruz as Secretaries of State and Defense. Improbable? Not
to me. Is anything improbable any more?
It used to be that people in positions in the State and Defense Departments may have been murdering
perceived enemies of the State, but they didn't go speaking out about it publicly. They tried
to maintain the image that the USA only killed in self defense like the white hat heroes of the
old cowboy movies, Roy Rogers and all like that, where the black hat bad guys always had to reach
for their " shooting irons' first so they could be plugged fair and square.
That ethic is long gone and was probably never real but the idea was maintained. But now we
have President BO not exactly bragging about his "drone kill list" but not in any way distancing
himself from public knowledge of it either. Kissengerian "realpolitik" and Big Henry is HRC's
hero and role model so she is positioned to become the Murder Mama of the west, ready to show
them Chinese and Ruskies who's ready to be fastest straight shootin'ist gun slinger in the global
town Main Street with Cruz and Morrell at her flanks like the Earp Brothers at the OK Corral with
Doc Holliday Kissinger limping along right there with 'em
The fact that murderous authoritarian conservatives get ahead in government and business far better
than peace loving, egalitarian liberals, says a lot about the American psychic.
The issue is not so much to be rid of them, but rather not to sustain a legal, financial,
cultural, political, and tactical infrastructure that REWARDS them and counts on them to effortlessly
enact the dirty work of Empire.
Essentially, the Shock Doctrine handbook might as well define "sociopath" as a required bona
fide in the career search for the right candidates.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why. There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths
in empowered positions onto The People.
The Page and Gilens Study made it clear that The People's Will is NOT what those in government
positions institute.
Find any long-sustained society on this planet (since the onset of patriarchy) that doesn't
evidence a political/social/economic hierarchy?
The most egalitarian nations, Europe's social Democracies have hardly achieved full Democratic
representation or full equality but they go much further than "political business as usual" within
the U.S.
The bottom line is that in most nations there have been long-established family dynasties.
And when 50 people hold half the nation's wealth or even half the world's wealth, there is no
possible way that ordinary citizens can direct policies.
This much concentrated wealth taints all systems of would-be Democratic representation.
And the problem didn't arise overnight. It's been long-standing.
Our own nation has only enjoyed short periods where power, privilege, and economic opportunity
were somewhat widely shared. To the Black community that marker is yet to be realized and ditto
for many Hispanics and women.
Nonetheless, the elites like shadowy creatures built up their think tank influence in the shadows
and patiently dismembered the New Deal piece by piece over the course of the past 3-4 decades.
When processes are done by stealth and through gradual accommodation, and when the mass media's
"experts" all lie about what's going on, and when false flags are used to decimate civil liberties
and to justify massive crackdowns on citizens... I think those persons enacting these strategies
should be held as the accountable parties... rather than those being done unto.
I mean how different is this castigation than that which justifies the violence on the part
of the white police officer when he and his gang of Neanderthals let loose with premeditated deadly
force against a Black kid or man who is unarmed?
How different is if from the mindset that knocks down the doors of families living in their
own nations! In Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... and then if someone gets shot, it's the fault of those
under attack?
This is the mindset of the rapist/dominator. It has NO place in a would-be Progressive forum
yet I come up against it daily. That is why I am SURE that many who post here (with regularity
under a constantly changing BATTERY of screen names) are in the military or otherwise in some
branch of its now farmed out "Intelligence-gathering" Hydra.
To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions
of influence) and why.
There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered
positions onto The People.
The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism,
fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals,
entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise.
How could anyone destroy the CIA? It's like roaches hiding behind the woodwork.
Besides, any position that advocates a violent solution adds to the problem of violence in
this world.
I am waiting for Lofgren's book on the Deep State. I ordered a paperback copy back in January
not realizing that it would not be published till this coming September.
I am well-aware of the Deep State and its relationship to NSA and CIA and lots more.
This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that
dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily
intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed".
But hey, I'm one of those tin foil hat wearing Truthers. Excuse me for questioning these jerks
all of these years later.
It's the human "psyche". Greed unifies, but ideals fragment as each idealist tries
to demonstrate how perfect they are in contrast to the other idealists.
"... Take the terror situation. There is one half-bad (others and "do nothing" approach are worse) solution for it – the so-called "Israelisation" of the UK. No one's gonna implement it. NO. ONE. No one, as well, won't go and bust illegal arms trafficers, suppliers of the IED components, liquidate "no-go" borroughs, and, most of all – go after suppliers of the ideological component for the jihad which assures shit like in attacks in Manchester and London keep happening – and will happen in the future. ..."
"... Probably. But these are not normal times. They are extraordinary times. Yes, the Establishment corrals its wagons in a circle and squeals about Indians on the horizon, but there are fissures all over the place. Whether something will bust or not, I do not know, but what I do know is that some things are beyond control and we are passengers. ..."
"... History is its own master and time and time again when we proclaim that everything is 'OK', the carpet is swept away from under our feet and the serious s/t hits the fan. If that happens, I hope we survive. I've got a cat to feed. ..."
Et Al, it does not matter because the whole system is rigged. Yes, there are long term concerns
which, if not adressed, gonna fuck all right in the arse generations of Britons to come. But they
won't be adressed. The system is such that it precludes from that.
Take the terror situation. There is one half-bad (others and "do nothing" approach are worse)
solution for it – the so-called "Israelisation" of the UK. No one's gonna implement it. NO. ONE.
No one, as well, won't go and bust illegal arms trafficers, suppliers of the IED components, liquidate
"no-go" borroughs, and, most of all – go after suppliers of the ideological component for the
jihad which assures shit like in attacks in Manchester and London keep happening – and will happen
in the future.
No one wants to go and say that the capitalist system adopted by the hopefuls in the past-war
era is not sustainable for Europe anymore. There are two possible exits – either its total dismantling,
or new war and plunder. But the system itself is beyond redeeming. You can't "reform it from within",
because it's designed such way to prevent just such a thing.
Probably. But these are not normal times. They are extraordinary times. Yes, the Establishment
corrals its wagons in a circle and squeals about Indians on the horizon, but there are fissures
all over the place. Whether something will bust or not, I do not know, but what I do know is that
some things are beyond control and we are passengers.
History is its own master and time and time again when we proclaim that everything is 'OK',
the carpet is swept away from under our feet and the serious s/t hits the fan. If that happens,
I hope we survive. I've got a cat to feed.
Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days.
Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those
IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward
winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator
John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an
integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.
Putin told Stone in Moscow
"Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking.
I
like him because of his patriotism,
and I can relate to his consistency in fighting
for the interests of his own country."
RT reports
that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman
Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with
the phrase,
"Carthage must be destroyed."
"People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old
World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast
the world is changing."
"They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always
dragging them back,"
"Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."
The thinking people in USA KNOW Russia had nothing
to do with our elections! We hated Clinton and would
have voted for an alligator if that was the only
opponent to Clinton!
The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its
reckless actions.
Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of
mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their
ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
Notable quotes:
"... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the
critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront
of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential
POTUS.
This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in
the future.
The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's
doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:
"... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
"... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified
information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are
based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have
often received bad information.
"There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are
dead wrong," Comey said.
"Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential
campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials
in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times
wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.
The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number
of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence
officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
"But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because
of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian
president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.
"In the main it was not true," Comey said.
But in an
analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the
Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not
able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.
The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization
of Russian intelligence officials.
Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's
description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."
Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the
media's coverage of its investigations.
"The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information,
is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually
know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey,
you got that thing wrong.' "
Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.
CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never
told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.
"In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed
him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of
the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties."
Oh OK so Trump MADE the little bitch state that he (Trump) was not the target .Really!!
"Former FBI Director James Comey says if FBI agents knew the president had asked him to drop an
investigation into the former national security adviser, it would have a "real chilling effect" on
their work.
Comey says he decided not to tell agents working on the Russia investigation about what he perceived
to be a request from the president to drop the probe into Michael Flynn.
Comey says even as good as the agents are, hearing that the president asked for this could be
detrimental. He says, "that's why we kept it so tight."
"... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
"... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated
Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified
information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly
like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.
Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has
leaked information designed to harm President Trump.
Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials
may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about
today.
UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open
hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating
himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against
the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
This line of questioning from
@SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked
Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What
is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper
from when Comey was fired in May:
Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one
of the articles of impeachment.
- Max Boot (@MaxBoot)
Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from
him.
Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary
Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified
in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special
prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special
counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.
UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at
least part of it has:
Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman
of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r
So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy
to bring down the elected president
#ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9
UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the
former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing
where Comey has implicated her.
Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?
Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington
University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:
Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to
force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions
UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media
narrative during his questioning of Comey.
Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted
exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger.
Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.
UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has
an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from
leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media
director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:
President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the
owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.
UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats
AND now the fake news media.
Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about
Russia that are just "dead wrong"
I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will
check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.
UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking
very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him
to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.
Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
"I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."
Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition
party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.
Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.
UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact
Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.
Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators -
and they will demand some kind of repayment
The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their
own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of
the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.
UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in
serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated
Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.
Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without
any senator having even asked.
UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will
make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.
Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of
James Comey's Senate testimony
UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama,
and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is
in full swing:
Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.
Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.
pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te
UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak
detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading
officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to
investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.
Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama,
and Hillary Clinton for obstruction
UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this
hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction
of justice."
"Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the
idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair,"
Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).
So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there
is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".
So far I have had a cursory look on it - a few minutes of turning the pages. It doesn't look
like a serious professional study, more like a light writing (albeit with numerous booknotes),
and the author's focus seems to be on exposing the cases where the U.S. misbehaved in the world
- so it shouldn't be critical of countries like Russia. The author cites journalists like Max
Blumenthal, Robert Perry, even Paul Craig Roberts, so I guess it
might
be an interesting
read. Perhaps I will read the book; not sure.
Published on 4 Jun 2017
As Hillary Clinton blames the Kremlin for her election loss, author and attorney Dan Kovalik argues
that anti-Russia sentiment is deeply embedded in the U.S. political establishment. Kovalik's new
book is "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify
Russia."
An analysis like Andrei P. Tsygankov's book was sorely
needed. However, I am not sure that Tsygankov will
fully reach with this text what he seemingly wanted to
attain - namely, an effective, noted and, above all,
consequential critique of US attitudes towards Russia
during the last decade. Tsygankov has, to be sure, done
a great deal of investigative work. He details many
episodes that illustrate well where US policy or
opinion makers have gone wrong. The book's chapters
deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars,
democracy promotion, and energy policies. It is also
important that this interpretation comes from a
Russia-born political scientist who lives in the US and
knows American discourse and politics well.
Tsygankov's deep knowledge of both, Russian affairs
as well as camps and trends in US politics, adds
considerable value to this analysis.
Yet, already the title of the book indicates where
Tsygankov may be defeating his purpose. By way of
classifying most of US-American critique of Russia as
"Russophobia", Tsygankov goes, at least in terms of the
concepts and words that he uses to interpret these
phenomena, a bit too far. Tsygankov asserts that
Russophobia is a major intellectual and political trend
in US international thought and behaviour. He also
tries to make the reader believe that there exists a
broad coalition of political commentators and actors
that form an anti-Russian lobby in Washington.
It is true that there is a lot to be criticised and
improved in Western approaches towards post-Soviet
Russia - and towards the non-Western world, in general.
US behaviour vis-à-vis, and American comments on,
Russia, for the last 20 years, have all too often been
characterized by incompetence and insensitivity
regarding the daunting challenges and far-reaching
consequences of the peculiarly post-Soviet political,
cultural and economic transformation. Often,
Russian-American relations have been hampered by plain
inattention among US decision and opinion makers - a
stunning phenomenon in view of the fact that Russia has
kept being and will remain a nuclear superpower, for
decades to come.
The hundreds of stupidities that have been uttered
on, and dozens of mistakes in US policies towards,
Russia needed to be chronicled and deconstructed.
Partly, Tsygankov has done that here with due effort,
interesting results and some interpretative success.
Yet, Tsygankov does not only talk about failures and
omissions regarding Russia. He also speaks of enemies
of the Russian state in the US, and their supposed
alliances as well various dealings.
Certainly, there is the occasional Russophobe in
Washington and elsewhere, in the Western world. Among
such personage, there are even some who are indeed
engaged in an anti-Russian political lobbying of sorts.
However, the circle of activists who truly deserve
to be called "Russophobes" largely contains immigrants
from the inner or outer Soviet/Russian empire. These
are people who have their own reasons to be distrustful
of, or even hostile towards, Russia. After the rise of
Vladimir Putin and the Russian-Georgian War, many of
them, I suspect, feel that they have always been right,
in their anti-Russian prejudices. In any way, this is a
relatively small group of people who are more
interested in the past and worried about the future of
their newly independent nation-states than they are
concerned about the actual fate of Russia herself.
Among those who are interested in Russia there are
many, as Tsygankov aptly documents, who have recently
been criticizing the Russian leadership harshly.
Some of them have, in doing so, exerted influence on
Western governments and public opinion. And partly such
critique was, indeed, unjustified, unbalanced or/and
counterproductive.
But is that enough to assert that there is an
"anti-Russian lobby"? What would such a lobby gain from
spoiling US-Russian relationships? Who pays these
lobbyists, and for what? Who, apart from a few
backward-looking East European émigrés, is sufficiently
interested in a new fundamental Russian-Western
confrontation so as to conduct the allegedly concerted
anti-Russian campaigns that Tsygankov appears to be
discovering, in his book?
"... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
"... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
"... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
"... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the
2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are
"friends in Bernie."
I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues,
ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence,
to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya
and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi
regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as
her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises
to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation).
These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.
The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was
a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the
actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks
on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted
as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.
It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for
a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay
to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not
to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).
Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday
and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am
and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore
the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake
news."
Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I
had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to
what the media said about her.
When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist
then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't
know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard
response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.
Megyn Kelly:
But
the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won
Trump
the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.
Vladimir Putin:
The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured
in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer
voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't
it?
Therefore, if we were
to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral
legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would
be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes
that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need
for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles
on anybody.
Now, if we turn this page
over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want
to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively
interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?
Just talk to people but
in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that
you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map,
everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their
political domestic processes.
Therefore, if someone,
and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence
in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then
the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking
offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.
Megyn Kelly:
That
sounds like a justification.
Vladimir Putin:
It
does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action
invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did
not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members
of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.
Presidents come and go,
and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not
change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States.
We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we
wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.
Vladimir Putin:
It's
just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told
them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia,
in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine
such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient
for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did.
And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening?
I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.
There is a theory that
Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this
theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's
context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special
services than to organise some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making
a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is
this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular
person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.
... ... ...
Megyn Kelly:
Aren't
you interested?
Vladimir
Putin:
No. Because if there had been something meaningful he would have made
a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There
weren't even any reports. Just every day, routine work that doesn't mean anything
that may not even have any prospects.
It's just that someone
decided to find fault with it and, you know, select it as a line of attack against
the current President. This isn't for us to get into, these are your domestic
political squabbles. So you deal with them. Nothing to talk about.
There was not even
a specific discussion of sanctions or something else. I just find it amazing how you
created a sensation where there wasn't anything at all. And proceeded to turn that
sensation into a tool for fighting the sitting president. You know, you're just very
resourceful people there, well done, probably your lives there are boring.
... ... ....
I almost did not talk to him. I said hello, we sat next to each other, then I said goodbye
and left. This sums up my entire acquaintanceship with Mr Flynn. If Mr Flynn and I had this kind
of interaction, while you and I, we have spent an entire day together, and Mr Flynn was fired
from his job, you then should be arrested and put in jail.
... ... ...
Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now?
The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little
pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy
in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect
in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it
all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?
Emergence of cyber attack charge of a perfect false flag operation.
Neocons and Clinton wing of Democratic Party (DemoRats) are trying to add to the momentum of rising
negativity about Trump in US public opinion to make impeaching Trump possible.
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next
it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...
Re "If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got." The US has an IP range,
time of day. IP ranges always point back to just a nation. Government workers always work 9 to
5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.
If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.
Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not
divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.
Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than
you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of
us don't have.
The report doesn't say "using an IP address from Russia" -- it says it was from the Russian
Military. I don't think the NSA would get the two confused. Also, the report says that at least
one email account was probably compromised ("probably" being intel-speak for "very high confidence").
With a compromised email account, further phishing attacks are much more likely to be successful.
So we don't know the extent of the hacking results (at least from this one report), but it was
not a "attempt to hack" but a "successful hack" with unknown-as-yet damage.
This is the second time Hillary failed to become "the inevitable president". Did Russia sabotage
her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did
terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign
and the Clinton Foundation?
Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic)
rust belt states in her campaign?
Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea
deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers "bimbos"?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive
missiles?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication
that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already
in Syria?
Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about "came, saw, and kill" Kaddafi?
Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist
homophobic bigots?
Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC's Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter
who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a "botched robbery" in which nothing was taken.
Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they
did do that one.
Soviet "military intelligence" who normally did military spying tried to run a spy in the UK
in the 1970's due to an accident of first contact. It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did
not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional
issues that result.
The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for
activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality. Russia knows what its "military intelligence"
can do and should not do.
It learned that by losing one of its more productive spies in the UK in the 1970's. Losing
a good spy does not get "military intelligence" a lot of other direct attempts at spying again.
Why would the US be talking about one of the one groups in Russia that would not be used for
spying in the West? Every other spy agency in the world would notice that glaring mistake too
and be wondering why the most simple lack of understanding of Russian's intelligence structure
would be allowed to be presented as "news"? The report does not "show the underlying "raw" intelligence
on which the analysis is based". "cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion" Read down further
and find the part about "not involved in vote tallying"
From not changing votes what ever happened did not even work well "unknown whether" .. "and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated" So some "spear-phishing"
did not change the votes and did not seem to even get many other results. Thats using some "military
intelligence". The quality of the effort was ""medium sophistication," one that "practically any
hacker can pull off."" Note the use of the term "hacker". "The actual voting machines aren't going
to be networked" Finally any issues got talked about as been the everyday issues of "between the
setup of the computers and the poll workers using them."
"While the document provides a rare window into the NSAâ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics
of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying âoerawâ intelligence on which the analysis
is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing
too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."
If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who works as
editor at the Intercept and helped publicize the Snowden leaks, is of the informed opinion that
Russia did not manipulate the US election, and that the whole claim was manufactured by the US
intelligence, and that both political sides saw it easier to treat this well-established lie as
if it was true than to publicly confront it.
Just look for the articles by Glenn Greenwald in Intercept. He has stated this explicitly a
good time before Putin said the same thing (but in Putin's mouth, it was subtle pressure against
the US intelligence community to stop attacking Russia).
This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.
Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.
Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably Did the US hack North Korean missile
tests? Probably Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes Does the US try
to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the
planet 24x7? YES!
This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to
think otherwise.
Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.
The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather,
that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and
sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?
Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The
bigger question is, did they throw the American election?
That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the
election all by herself, IMHO.
The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's
an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials.
That is the story here.
The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are
many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.
Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame.
Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear
field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was
only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes
cast.
This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she
was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant
man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the
reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.
Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they
knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:
"... U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S. ..."
Exclusive: By dunning NATO nations to chip more money into the military alliance, President Trump
may inadvertently cause some Europeans to rethink the over-the-top anti-Russian propaganda, says
ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump traveled to Brussels, Belgium on Wednesday
evening for their fourth stop on their trip abroad. President Trump met with leaders from around
the world before the NATO Summit in Brussels. (White House photo)
At that point it will become possible to see through the West's alarmist propaganda. It will also
become more difficult to stoke artificial fears that Russia, for reasons known only to NATO war planners
and neoconservative pundits, will attack NATO. As long as Russian hardliners do not push President
Vladimir Putin aside, Moscow will continue to reject its assigned role as bête noire.
First a request:Let me ask those of you who believe Russia is planning to invade Europe to put
down the New York Times for a minute or two.Take a deep cleansing breath, and try to be
open to the possibility that heightened tensions in Europe are, rather, largely a result of the ineluctable
expansion of NATO eastward over the quarter-century since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
Actually, NATO has doubled in size, despite a U.S. quid-pro-quo to expand NATO "one inch"
to the east of Germany.The quid required of Russia was acquiescence to a reunited Germany
within NATO and withdrawal of the 300,000-plus Russian troops stationed in East Germany.
The U.S. reneged on its quo side of the bargain as the NATO alliance added country after
country east of Germany with eyes on even more – while Russia was not strong enough to stop NATO
expansion until February 2014 when, as it turned out, NATO's eyes finally proved too big for its
stomach.A U.S.-led coup d'etat overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installed new, handpicked
leaders in Kiev who favored NATO membership.That crossed Russia's red line; it was determined – and
at that point able – to react strongly, and it did.
These are the flat-facts, contrasting with the mainstream U.S. media's propaganda about "Russian
aggression." Sadly, readers of the New York Times know little to nothing of this recent history.
Today's Russian Challenge
The existential threat to NATO comprises a different kind of Russian "threat," which owes much
to the adroitness and sang froid of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who flat-out refuses
to play his assigned role of a proper enemy – despite the Western media campaign to paint him the
devil incarnate.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28,
2015. (UN Photo)
Over time, even the most sophisticated propaganda wears thin, and more and more Europeans will
realize that NATO, in its present form, is an unnecessary, vestigial organ already a quarter-century
beyond its expiration date – and that it can flare up painfully, like a diseased appendix.At a time
when citizens of many NATO countries are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, they will
be reluctant to sink still more money into rehab for a vestigial organ.
That there are better uses for the money is already clear, and President Trump's badgering of
NATO countries to contribute ever more for defense may well backfire. Some are already asking, "Defense
against what?"Under the painful austerity that has been squeezing the Continent since the Wall Street
crash nearly a decade ago, a critical mass of European citizens is likely to be able to distinguish
reality from propaganda – and perhaps much sooner than anyone anticipates.This might eventually empower
the 99 percent, who don't stand to benefit from increased military spending to fight a phantom threat,
to insist that NATO leaders stop funding a Cold War bureaucracy that has long since outlived its
usefulness.
A military alliance normally dissolves when its raison d'etre – the military threat it was created
to confront – dissolves.The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 – more than a quarter century ago – and
with it the Warsaw Pact that was established as the military counter to NATO.
Helpful History
NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, who had been Winston Churchill's chief military assistant
during World War II, stated that NATO's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in,
and the Germans down."But a lot can change over the course of almost seven decades.
The NATO flag is raised during the opening ceremony for Exercise Steadfast Jazz in Poland, Nov.
3, 2013. (NATO photo by British army Sgt. Ian Houlding)
The Russians relinquished their East European empire after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,
and withdrew their armed forces.There no longer needed to be a concerted priority effort to "keep
the Russians out," preoccupied as they were with fixing the economic and social mess they inherited
when the USSR fell.
As for "keeping the Germans down," it is not difficult to understand why the Russians, having
lost 25 to 27 million in WWII, were a bit chary at the prospect of a reunited Germany.Moscow's concern
was allayed somewhat by putting this new Germany under NATO command, since this sharply lessened
the chance the Germans would try to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
But NATO became the "defensive" blob that kept growing and growing, partly because that is what
bureaucracies do (unless prevented) and partly because it became a way for U.S. presidents to show
their "toughness." By early 2008, NATO had already added ten new members – all of them many "inches"
to the east of Germany: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
There were rumors that Ukraine and Georgia were in queue for NATO membership, and Russian complaints
were becoming louder and louder.NATO relations with Russia were going to hell in a hand basket and
there was no sign the Washington policymakers gave a hoot.
A leading advocate from the Russo-phobic crowd was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been
President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and remained in the forefront of those pressing
for NATO expansion – to include Ukraine.In 1998, he wrote, "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be
a Eurasian empire."
The relentless expansion of NATO greatly bothered former Sen. Bill Bradley, a longtime expert
on Russia and a sober-minded policy analyst. On Jan. 23, 2008, in
a talk before the Carnegie
Council for Ethics in International Affairs, he sounded an almost disconsolate note, describing NATO
expansion a "terribly sad thing" a "blunder of monumental proportions.
"We had won the Cold War and we kicked them [the Russians] when they were down; we expanded
NATO.In the best of circumstances it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO – people had to have a job.In
the worst of circumstances it was certain irredentist East European types, who believe Russia will
forever be the enemy and therefore we have to protect against the time when they might once again
be aggressive, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy."
As tensions with Russia heightened late last decade, Sen. Bradley added, "Right now we are confronted
with something that could have easily been avoided."
Finally Saying Nyet
A week after Bradley's lament, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called in U.S. Ambassador
William Burns to read him the riot act.The subject line of Burns's CONFIDENTIAL cable #182 of Feb.
1, 2008, in which he reported Lavrov's remarks to Washington shows that Burns played it straight,
choosing not to mince his own or Lavrov's words: "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines."
NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
Here what Ambassador Burns wrote in his summary, which the public knows because the cable was
among the thousands leaked to WikiLeaks by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, for which she was
imprisoned for seven years and only recently released (yet the cable has been essentially ignored
by the corporate U.S. news media):
"Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan at
the Bucharest summit, Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition,
stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO
enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an emotional and neuralgic issue for Russia, but strategic
policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
"In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading
to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.
Additionally, the government of Russia and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership
would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and
bilateral relations generally."
So, it is not as though then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. policymakers were
not warned, in very specific terms, of Russia's redline on Ukrainian membership in NATO. Nevertheless,
on April 3, 2008, the final declaration from at a NATO summit in Bucharest asserted: "NATO welcomes
Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these
countries will become members of NATO."
The Ukraine Coup
Six years later, on Feb. 22, 2014, the U.S.-pushed putsch in Ukraine, which George Friedman, then
President of the think-tank STRATFOR, labeled "the most blatant coup in history," put in power a
fiercely anti-Russian regime eager to join the Western alliance.
President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary
Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White
House Photo by Pete Souza)
Russia's reaction was predictable – actually, pretty much predicted by the Russians themselves.But
for Western media and "statesmen," the Ukrainian story begins on Feb. 23, 2014, when Putin and his
advisers decided to move quickly to thwart NATO's designs on Ukraine and take back Crimea where Russia's
only warm-water naval base has been located since the days of Catherine the Great.
U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it
a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's
immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression,"
as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S.
A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, 2016, when then U.S. Ambassador to
NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a press briefing before the NATO summit in Warsaw:
"Beginning in 2014 we're moving into a new period in NATO's long history. So the first thing
that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under
Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed
quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. Well, any notion of strategic partnership
came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014."
And so, for the nonce, Western propaganda captured the narrative.How long this distortion of history
will continue is the question.The evolution of Europe as a whole (including Russia) over the past
half-century, together with the profound changes that this evolution has brought, suggest that those
of the European Establishment eager to inject life into the vestigial organ called NATO – whether
for lucrative profits from arms sales or cushy spots in NATO's far-flung bureaucracy – are living
on borrowed time.
President Trump can keep them off balance by creating uncertainty with respect to how Washington
regards its nominal NATO obligation to risk war with Russia should some loose cannon in, say, Estonia,
start a shooting match with the Russians. On balance, the uncertainty that Trump has injected may
be a good thing. Similarly, to the degree that his pressure for increased defense spending belatedly
leads to an objective estimate of the "threat" from Russia, that may be a good thing too.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. A CIA analyst for 27 years, he specialized in Russian foreign policy. He
led the CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one during
President Ronald Reagan's first term.
"... What is NATO? Originally, NATO was supposed to be a military alliance to oppose the Soviet armed forces and, later, the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Now that these two have disappeared, NATO has no real mission. What NATO still has is a huge bureaucracy. There is a lot of money to be made through NATO: salaries, contracts, investments, etc. Heck – these guys just built themselves gigantic and brand new headquarters , probably to "deter the Russian aggression", right? ..."
"... NATO is also a huge bureaucratic lift which can pull people up to the real centers of power, including financial power. Furthermore, NATO is also a gang of people who use NATO to advance their petty career or political agenda. ..."
"... What NATO is not is a militarily useful alliance. Oh yes, sure, the Americans can use NATO to force the Europeans to use US military hardware, that is true, but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting. ..."
"... And then there is the " New Europe ": the crazies in Poland or the Baltics who are making an immense effort in trying to put the Old Europeans (who made the huge mistake of accepting them into NATO) on a collision course with Russia. ..."
"... From a pragmatic point of view, NATO member states should have never EVER incorporated the "New Europeans" into their alliance. The same goes for the EU, of course. But in their illusions of grandeur and their petty revanchism they decided that *real* Europe needed to be joined at the hip with "New Europe" and now they are paying the price for this strategic mistake of colossal proportions. Of course, the Americans are bastards for encouraging the Eurodummies in their delusional dreams, but now that the deed is done, the Americans are doing the rational and pragmatic thing: they are letting the Eurodummies deal with their own mistakes. This is best shown by Trump's new policy about the Ukraine: he simply does not care. ..."
"... There used to be a time when the G7 really was huge, but now with China and India missing at the table and with Russia expelled, the G7 has become just a kaffeeklatsch for ugly rich people, an occasion to reminisce about the good old days when Europe still mattered. ..."
"... We are told that the G7 is composed of the seven major advanced economies on the planet (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), but the only real power in that list is the US. Next, it would be Germany, but Merkel's immigration policies have resulted in a EU-wide disaster and she is very much an embattled leader. She is also a prime culprit of the Ukrainian fiasco. ..."
"... in political terms the Japanese are voiceless US subcontractors ..."
"... in economic terms the G7 has pretty much been replaced by the G20 while in political terms the G7 is an empty shell. ..."
"... Trump's contempt for European leaders is definitely undiplomatic and shows a basic lack of education, but it still is a contempt the European leaders richly deserve. ..."
"... In politics, power is not absolute, but relative. Sure, the US military is basically dysfunctional and doesn't seem to be capable of frightening anybody on the US list of "enemies", but compared to Europe the US is a powerhouse. As for the Europeans, they are depending on the Americans for pretty much everything that matters. Trump understands all that and he seem to have more respect for Kim Jong-un than for Angela Merkel. I can't blame him as this is also how I feel. ..."
"... The traditional British foreign policy has always been to fosters wars in Europe to prevent any kind of continental unity. As for the US, its main objective has always been to keep "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". And now we see the Brits leaving the EU and the Americans pulling out well, maybe not out of Europe per se , but out of most of Europe's problems. So why are the Anglos pulling out? Is that not a clear sign that Europe is sinking? ..."
"... But for the time being, war is far less likely than it would have been the case with Hillary. What we see is Trump making "America great again" by stepping on its allies in Europe and by contemptuously disregarding the rest of humanity. That kind of arrogant megalomania is not a pretty sight for sure – but way better than WWIII. And "better than WWIII" is all we can hope for in the foreseeable future. ..."
"... The propaganda couched as the American Way of Life has become so all consuming that it took just one individual to march to center stage and reflect back our carefully hidden shortcomings and delusions for the fear and loathing to begin. We've been sleepwalking for a long time. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/black-magic-or-jungian-shadow/ ..."
"... NATO gives the US a fig leaf by being a coalition of the willing for whatever merry ventures we choose to get into at any given time. ..."
"... I'm not so sure that the West has the will, purpose, or capacity for sacrifice to prosecute a Third World War. I think the Russians are primarily preparing to defend themselves from the disorganized, spastic lashing-out of a dying West. ..."
"... I can only hope Trump continues to treat the EU political elites as just so many gutless dogs & inept clowns: because they are ..."
"... Start with the most elementary act of common sense: stop ALL sanctions, whether economic or political against Russia. Then fully commit to Eurasian integration. Sure, the US will SPIT, but, the EU is sinking – fast. Anyway, I'll dream on .. ..."
"... You have entirely missed the point. We know good and well that the president alone does not get to make any important foreign policy decisions–or probably any decisions at all. We know just as well that he is expected to be a salesman promoting policies crafted by the banks, corporations and the deep state. We know. The point is that Trump is an incredibly bad spokesman! He is discrediting the empire by his very presence. ..."
"... American land forces never were serious contented compared to USSR and with 90′s mess reversed things are back to normal state of affairs which means Russian land forces asserting normal state of dominance along Russian borders. ..."
"... Avoiding World War III works for me. ..."
"... Yeah, I have a problem with that one too. I don't see such chivalry coming from US – assuming 90% of the fighting to save Europe. NATO was designed with one purpose only – to defend US and no one else. Anybody who believes otherwise – doesn't live in the real world. ..."
"... In the 68 years of NATO existence, the only country to ever invoke article 5 was – you guess it – US. Article 5 means asking for help from other NATO members to come to your defense when you are attacked. So US asked for help because they were "attacked" in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The money Changers's propaganda has always spread lies that have been the exact opposite of their actions. Trump probably had to buy in or he wouldn't be President and his Jewish son-in-law is there on keep an eye on him. He is changing our foreign policy to the extent that he isn't pursuing regime change in Syria even though we have boots on the ground. ..."
"... I believe that, despite the fact that we have been a fascist economic state since the Origins of the Truman Doctrine and the build up of the MIIC, Trump didn't become a billionaire because he's clueless. I'm in favor of his actions, so far. He has said screw the Globalist and screw the wasted-brains-EPA. ..."
"... Everything in the world is controlled by Money Grabbing Economy Controllers so Trump will have issues getting his MAGA agenda but his foreign policy, despite the Syria hiccup, is acceptable. After decades of our forces killing millions of civilians, if Syria lost a few at that airbase, well.. it could have been worse. ..."
"... Donald Trump: "Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they don't mention names it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake news writers. #FakeNews is the enemy!" ..."
"... Your critique of Saker's evaluation of Trump is basically grounded deeply from within the matrix, whose prisoner you seem to be. Yes, Trump is widely painted to be "a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as are the people who voted for him" but no, that is the view that the mass media has been dishing out. It is not true, simply not true, even though many have swallowed it along with a whole load of marbles. ..."
"... You are basically paraphrasing Clinton when you jeer "the people who voted for him". Yes, these "despicable folk" did vote Trump into power, and yes they might well do so again. You do not seem to understand the processes at work here: part democracy, part a revolt of the people sickened by the one-sided narrative propagated in the media. ..."
First, a confession: I really don't know how the corporate media has covered the Trump trip to
NATO and the G7 summit. Frankly, I don't really care – it's been a long while since I stopped listening
to these imperial shills. There is a risk in completely ignoring them, and that risk is the risk
to say "white" when everybody else says "black". This is a small risk – and, after all, who cares?
– but today I will take it again and give you my own take on Trump's trip to Europe: I think that
it was an immense success. But not necessarily for Trump as much as it was an immense success for
the enemies of the Empire, like myself. Here is my own rendition on what I think has taken place.
First, Trump was consistently rude. I cannot judge if this lack of manners is the real Trump or
whether Trump was tying to send an unspoken message. For whatever this is worth, I know of only one
person who had personal and private dealing with the Trump family, including The Donald Himself,
and according to him, Trump is an impeccably courteous person. Whatever may be the case, whether
this was nature or no so subtle "messaging", Trump truly outdid himself. He
unceremoniously pushed aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro , who richly deserves being treated
with utter contempt. Then he blocked out Angela
Merkel during the official photo taking . He made the G7 wait for over an hour, he refused to
walk to another photo op by foot.
He didn't even bother putting on his translation headset when others
were speaking and, crime of crimes, he told the NATO members states to pay more money while
not saying a single word about Article 5 . It is hard to gauge what the rest of the assembled
politicians really thought (prostitutes are good at hiding and repressing their own feelings), but
Merkel clearly was angry and frustrated.
Apparently, everybody hated Trump, with the sole possible
exception of Marcon (but he is a high-end prostitute). As much as Obama was a charmer, Trump seems
to relish the role of ruffian. But most importantly, Trump treated the EU/NATO gang with the contempt
they deserve and that, frankly, I find most refreshing. Why?
The ugly truth about NATO: Eurosissies and Eurodummies
What is NATO? Originally, NATO was supposed to be a military alliance to oppose the Soviet armed
forces and, later, the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Now that these two have disappeared, NATO has
no real mission. What NATO still has is a huge bureaucracy. There is a lot of money to be made through
NATO: salaries, contracts, investments, etc. Heck –
these guys just built themselves gigantic and brand new headquarters , probably to "deter the
Russian aggression", right?
NATO is also a huge bureaucratic lift which can pull people up to the
real centers of power, including financial power. Furthermore, NATO is also a gang of people who
use NATO to advance their petty career or political agenda. At best, NATO is a gigantic fig leaf
covering the obscenity of western imperialism.
What NATO is not is a militarily useful alliance. Oh yes, sure, the Americans can use NATO to
force the Europeans to use US military hardware, that is true, but should a war break out, especially
a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do
90%+ of the fighting. Most NATO armies are a joke anyway, but even those who are marginally better
fully depend on the US for all the force multipliers (intelligence, logistics, transportation, communications,
navigation, etc.).
And then there is the "
New
Europe ": the crazies in Poland or the Baltics who are making an immense effort in trying to
put the Old Europeans (who made the huge mistake of accepting them into NATO) on a collision course
with Russia.
From a pragmatic point of view, NATO member states should have never EVER incorporated the
"New Europeans" into their alliance. The same goes for the EU, of course. But in their illusions
of grandeur and their petty revanchism they decided that *real* Europe needed to be joined at the
hip with "New Europe" and now they are paying the price for this strategic mistake of colossal proportions.
Of course, the Americans are bastards for encouraging the Eurodummies in their delusional dreams,
but now that the deed is done, the Americans are doing the rational and pragmatic thing: they are
letting the Eurodummies deal with their own mistakes. This is best shown by Trump's new policy about
the Ukraine: he simply does not care.
Oh sure, he will say something about the Minsk Agreement, maybe mention Crimea, he might even
say something about a Russian threat. But then he turns away and walks. And the Eurodummies are now
discovering something which they should have suspected all along: the Ukraine is *their* problem
now, the Americans don't care because they have nothing to lose and nothing to win either, and so
besides empty words they will offer nothing. Much worse is the fact that it appears that it will
be the Europeans who will end up paying most of the costs of rebuilding the Ukraine when the current
Nazi regime is finally removed (but that is a topic for a future article).
There is karmic justice at work here: all the Eurodummies will now have to deal with the fallout
from the total collapse of the Ukraine, but the first ones to pay will be the Poles who tried so
hard to draw NATO and the real Europe into their revanchist agenda. Besides, is it not simply justice
for the Poles who for years have been ranting about a Russian threat and who for years have been
supporting nationalist and even neo-Nazi movements in the Ukraine to now be faced with a deluge of
problems (social, political, economic, etc.) coming from "their" Ukrainians while the Russians will
be looking at this mess from the east, protected by the two Novorussian republics and formidable
National and Border guards. As most Russians will, I wish the Europeans " bien du plaisir
" with the upcoming waves of Ukrainian refugees and the "European values" they will bring with them.
... ... ...
The sad truth is that NATO and the EU are do not deserve to be treated with any respect at all.
Trump's condescension is fully deserved. Worse, the Americans don't even have to pretend to take
the Europeans seriously because, for the past decade, the latter have sheepishly obeyed the most
ridiculous and even self-defeating orders from the Americans.
Truly, Victoria Nuland's famous words about the EU were expressing something of an American consensus
about the Old Continent.
The G7: "bubbles from a sunken world"
" Bubbles from a sunken world " is not an expression I coined. It was the Russian author
Ivan Solonevich who wrote that about the kind of exiled Russian aristocrats who still thought that
they would one day recover all their properties seized by the Soviets in Russia. Still, this expression
also applies to the G7 leaders who meet with a great deal of gravitas and pretend like they really
matter. In truth, they don't. There used to be a time when the G7 really was huge, but now with China
and India missing at the table and with Russia expelled, the G7 has become just a kaffeeklatsch for
ugly rich people, an occasion to reminisce about the good old days when Europe still mattered.
In reality, of course, and just like with the EU or NATO, the G7 is an anachronistic leftover
of a long gone past. G7 countries are simply not the place where the real action is nowadays. But
even worse than that is the fact that the leaders of the G7 suffer from the same form of senile dementia
as the EU or NATO leaders which is unsurprising since they are more or less the same people: they
have nothing original or new to say, nothing important for sure. They have no vision at all, very
little legitimacy and even less credibility.
Yes, sure, in France Macron did win, but only because
the French establishment engaged in a massive propaganda campaign aimed at beating Marine LePen.
But if you consider that only about 20% of the French voted for Macron in the first round and that
he achieved that rather pitiful score even though he had the full support of the French establishment
then you realize how unpopular that establishment really is with the French. While the Rothschild
propaganda machine tried to present Macron like some kind of de Gaulle, most French people did see
him for what he was: a hollow puppet in the hands of the transnational plutocracy. And yet, of all
the leaders of the G7, Macron is undeniably the most dynamic one, not only due to his young age,
but simply because he does not come across as some kind of fossil from a distant past.
Trump and the Eurodwarves
We are told that the G7 is composed of the seven major advanced economies on the planet (Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), but the only real power
in that list is the US. Next, it would be Germany, but Merkel's immigration policies have resulted
in a EU-wide disaster and she is very much an embattled leader. She is also a prime culprit of the
Ukrainian fiasco.Next in line would be the UK, but the UK has just left the EU and May is presiding
over a process which she herself opposes, as do the British elites. Which leaves us with Japan, Italy
and Canada. Japan's past economic power is being overshadowed by China's immense economy while in
political terms the Japanese are voiceless US subcontractors. Italy should not even be part of the
G7, at least not in political and economic terms, because Italy is much closer to her Mediterranean
neighbors such as Spain and Greece and therefore looked down with contempt by the "northerners",
especially Germany. Which leaves Canada, arguably the most irrelevant and subservient country of
them all (when is the last time Canada had anything of relevance to say about anything? Exactly).
The bottom line is this: in economic terms the G7 has pretty much been replaced by the G20 while
in political terms the G7 is an empty shell. Trump fully realizes that and that is why he does not
even try to be polite with them.
Obama was a born used car salesman: he could be charming and polite with anybody and everybody.
Trump has never had any need to act in such a way and, in the case of the Europeans, he does not
even feel like trying.
Trump's contempt for European leaders is definitely undiplomatic and shows a basic lack of education,
but it still is a contempt the European leaders richly deserve. Furthermore, while it is true that
the AngloZionist Empire is sinking, the European part is sinking much faster than the American one.
Which is unsurprising since the US is truly a very unique country.
The American Sonderfall
While I was writing this article, I have been listening to the press conference of Donald Trump
in the Rose Garden explaining to the world that the US would now withdraw from the
Paris Agreement . I don't
want to discuss the merits of this agreements or the reasons behind Trump's decision, but I will
stress that this places the US in direct opposition to 195 other countries who signed this treaty
expecting the US to abide by its terms. 195 countries really means just about the entire planet.
And yet Trump feels confident that he can afford taking a separate path and the rest of the world
will have to shut up.
Trump is right. The US is a "special case".
There is absolutely nothing the rest of the planet can do to prevent the United States from withdrawing
from this or any other agreement. The best proof of that fact can be found in the more or less official
US position that it does not need a UN Security Council to impose sanctions on another nation, threaten
it with military aggression or even go to war against it. Right now, the US have attacked Syria several
times already and there are US forces deployed inside Syria and nobody seems to care, which is kind
of ironic considering how many lawyers there are in the US and, even more so, in Congress. Yet everybody
sheepishly accepts that the US is, for some reason, above the law, that laws are for "others", not
for the "indispensable nation" with a "duty" and a "special responsibility" to "lead the world" (sorry,
I indulge, but I just love this kind of imperialistic language!).
In politics, power is not absolute, but relative. Sure, the US military is basically dysfunctional
and doesn't seem to be capable of frightening anybody on the US list of "enemies", but compared to
Europe the US is a powerhouse. As for the Europeans, they are depending on the Americans for pretty
much everything that matters. Trump understands all that and he seem to have more respect for Kim
Jong-un than for Angela Merkel. I can't blame him as this is also how I feel.
The many sweet ironies of it all
The traditional British foreign policy has always been to fosters wars in Europe to prevent
any kind of continental unity. As for the US, its main objective has always been to keep "keep the
Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". And now we see the Brits leaving the EU and
the Americans pulling out well, maybe not out of Europe per se , but out of most of Europe's
problems. So why are the Anglos pulling out? Is that not a clear sign that Europe is sinking?
One of the favorite slogans of the Ukronazis is "Україна – це Європа" (The Ukraine is Europe).
Alas, as I wrote in a past article
, it is Europe which "became" (like) the Ukraine: poor, corrupt, lead by hypocritical ideologues
totally detached from reality and, most importantly, totally fixated on imaginary threats. The only
difference between the EU leaders and their Ukronazi counterparts is that while the latter have declared
that they are already fighting a Russian invasion, the former are only preparing to counter it. That's
it. Other than that, I see no difference, at least none that matters. Oh, I almost forgot the Americans:
they don't fight the Russians (yet?), but they are "defending" their country from the onslaught of
Russian hackers and pro-Russian moles in the entourage of Donald Trump. Brilliant.
In this world got mad, only the Russians are patiently trying to convince their western partners
to return to some semblance of sanity. But, frankly, I don't think that they are very hopeful. They
see how the so-called "West" is falling apart, how the ruling elites of the West appear to be hell-bent
on self-destruction and they wonder: why are our "western partners" so determined to bring about
their own demise and why are they blaming us for what they are doing to themselves? They also often
laugh at the quasi magic powers the paranoid crazies in the West seem to ascribe to Russia. One senior
US official, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence,
even thinks that Russians are " almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique " to subvert democracy (I can't decide if he sounds
more like a Nazi racist or a clown probably a mix of both). As I said, the Russians are mostly laughing
at it all, but just to make darn sure things don't turn ugly, they are also
re-creating their famous "Shock Armies " (including at least one Tank Army) and
doubling the size of the Russian Airborne Forces bringing them to 72,000 soldiers and
generally
preparing for World War 3 .
But for the time being, war is far less likely than it would have been the case with Hillary.
What we see is Trump making "America great again" by stepping on its allies in Europe and by contemptuously
disregarding the rest of humanity. That kind of arrogant megalomania is not a pretty sight for sure
– but way better than WWIII. And "better than WWIII" is all we can hope for in the foreseeable future.
"Bubbles from a sunken world" is not an expression I coined.
It's a good reapplication of it, though.
The peoples of Europe no longer have the advantage they had from the industrial revolution
they created. They are resource poor, having no great areas of territory, and that depleted by
centuries of use. There is one remaining asset they could use to maintain some of their position
of punching so dramatically above their weight, which has been their status in human affairs for
the past few centuries at least, and that would be the cultural and genetic advantages they used
to create that dominance in the first place.
The ultimate dark joke is the fact that the said peoples of Europe are in the process of actively
destroying any remnants of that final asset, through cultural degradation and mass immigration.
In this light, we should consider to what degree the political and propaganda support for said
processes of cultural degradation and mass immigration emanate from the rivals and enemies of
the European peoples, with the intention of preventing forever any recovery from the disastrous,
suicidal wars of the early C20th. The most obvious source of such malign influence would be the
US, an offshoot of the European peoples which gained the most from the wars in question and has
the most to lose from any recovery of the Old World European peoples to any position of sovereignty.
(In this context, of course, any process that hastens the alienation of the European political
classes from their comfortable and profitable subordination to the US elites, such as the events
Saker describes above, can only be regarded as a useful contribution to the process of recovery
of sovereignty.)
The propaganda couched as the American Way of Life has become so all consuming that it
took just one individual to march to center stage and reflect back our carefully hidden shortcomings
and delusions for the fear and loathing to begin. We've been sleepwalking for a long time.
https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/black-magic-or-jungian-shadow/
One senior US official, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, even thinks
that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which
is a typical Russian technique" to subvert democracy
Sounds like a pretty good description of the Jew mafia.
"It is hard to gauge what the rest of the assembled politicians really thought (prostitutes"
Correct punctuation at that point in the sentence: ). They were thinking of their own prostitutes
and who would pay for them if the US pulls out of NATO. NATO gives the US a fig leaf by being
a coalition of the willing for whatever merry ventures we choose to get into at any given time.
Don't give Trump too much credit. After hearing his campaign rhetoric, I thought one of this
first moves would be to end the ERI, a recently created $3 billion annual American military slush
fund to add bases and equipment stores in Europe. Check out this Dept of Defense press release
this week
"The Defense Department's fiscal year 2018 budget request includes nearly $4.8 billion for
the European Reassurance Initiative to enhance deterrence and defense and improve the readiness
of forces in Europe, the U.S. European Command director of strategy, plans and policy said today.
Air Force Maj. Gen. David W. Allvin held a telephone briefing with reporters, speaking from Eucom
headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
ERI funding for next fiscal year is up $1.4 billion over fiscal 2017, he said, noting that
the funding increase will support the deterrence of future Russian aggression and malign influence
through increased joint air, sea and land force responsiveness and expanded interoperability with
combined multinational forces. 'This is one of our nation's commitments to Europe, and it demonstrates
our strong dedication to the trans-Atlantic bond and the defense of our allies,' Allvin said."
Eurosissies? Eurodummies? the 'journalism' here is becoming increasingly puerile, perhaps aiming
for a dumbed down audience as traffic has grown?
"Trump is an impeccably courteous person"?
The man has a global reputation of a human pig, a racist, a misogynist, a bigot The more I
see such outlandish and frankly bewildering statements on here, the more I begin to believe my
own value of the site has been too quickly given and now appears misguided.
I repeat, Trump has long ago persuaded the world that he is scum. Bush was bad enough, basically
a special needs coke fiend. Yet he is one reason why the rest of the world understands how a man
as sickeningly appalling as Trump could get into so called 'power'. This was not the media cleverly
depicting him in a bad light, he has always behaved in the same way, always cultivated the same
public image, many moons before running for president. It is not brainwashing or conditioning
to find a nasty moron as putrid, it is natural to be sickened by sick souls. It is possible that
the site has been co-opted, or was a tool designed to monitor and direct and feed a non mainstream
audience who revel in their own arrogant assertion of exceptionalism?
I am unsure as of yet as to why the author has gradually parted Trump and the US government
from the anglozionist machine. When clearly, by every measure, that power structure owns the US
government, decides its every major decision and as for Trump making any decisions that matter indeed,
alleged 'experts' are focusing on how he shakes hands with other 'leaders' rather focusing on
the ins and outs of what the anglozionists have organised behind the scenes of $300bn moving from
KSA to the banksters.
Trump is no leader. The more he is assumed as much the less credibility a writer enjoys. The
man is a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as our the people who voted for him. Nothing
has changed with US policy, because it is not decided by the US government. Hilary, Obama, Trump,
whoever they are Punch and Judy to draw attention, to nourish the fable of democracy, to provide
a human shape to inhuman power
het vergt ook en vooral de politieke wil om een afschrikkingsmacht op te bouwen die zich kan
meten met Ruslands militaire potentieel en van Teheran tot Peking ontzag inboezemt
This is what Brill this morning writes in the more or less leading Dutch newpaper Volkskrant.
The translation: also the political will, especially, is needed to build a deterrent might
that is equal to the Russian military potential and is seen with awe from Teheran to Peking. One
wonders in what psychiatric institution Brill's treatment failed. Stalin died in 1953. Chrustsjow
removed the Russian rockets and atomic heads from Cuba. Putin sells gas.
@Carlton Meyer We, the Dutch, in a referendum rejected the EU association treaty with Ukraine.
Of course in the democratic Netherlands and the even more democratic EU it had no effect.
But it did have a curious effect. When our prime minister Rutte, nickname Pinokkio for
his lies, defended rejecting the referendum he referred to Russian vacuum bombs on Aleppo.
So he confirmed what we knew, the Ukraine association is part of the war of the west against Russia.
Rutte did not condemn the USA MOAB vacuum bomb east of Abottabad, Pakistan. NATO should
have been dissolved in 1990, perhaps already when the Cuba crisis was solved peacefully.
I'm not so sure that the West has the will, purpose, or capacity for sacrifice to
prosecute a Third World War. I think the Russians are primarily preparing to defend themselves
from the disorganized, spastic lashing-out of a dying West. They need a credible nuclear force to deter
the West from launching an end-of-life nuclear strike, and sufficient ground forces to protect
their borders from refugees and bandit military units while the West finishes its death throes
and then ( I hope) re-birth.
Great article. I can only hope Trump continues to treat the EU political elites as just so many gutless dogs
& inept clowns: because they are . Perhaps such treatment will wake the EU up (sure: LOL
!) The Saker is right about Europe's increasing insignificance but, the answers are there
.
Start with the most elementary act of common sense: stop ALL sanctions, whether economic or
political against Russia. Then fully commit to Eurasian integration.
Sure, the US will SPIT, but, the EU is sinking – fast. Anyway, I'll dream on ..
Trump is no leader. The more he is assumed as much the less credibility a writer enjoys.
The man is a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as our the people who voted for
him.
You have entirely missed the point. We know good and well that the president alone does not
get to make any important foreign policy decisions–or probably any decisions at all. We know just
as well that he is expected to be a salesman promoting policies crafted by the banks, corporations
and the deep state. We know. The point is that Trump is an incredibly bad spokesman! He
is discrediting the empire by his very presence.
We don't want to be admired or respected for destroying one country after the next. We don't
want to be the leaders of the 'free' world. We don't want to be part of any entangling alliances,
or any 'new world order'. We just want our country back . And since they won't let us simply
vote to end the empire, we have no further recourse but to try and sabotage and discredit it from
within. And it's working! It's working because of Trump.
So I say: let him be as vulgar and uncouth as wants. Let him smack around the other NATO countries
until they finally wake up. Let him further erode our increasingly untenable position in the middle
east. Let him!
It's all part of God's plan for man, my friend. If we have to endure a little international
isolation in order to achieve our aims, well that's just fine with us. We are, after all, isolationists
. We don't want empire or foreign wars. We just want our country back.
We are approaching, if not already in, the interregnum between empires. Europe has never recovered
its pride since WWII the US made sure of that ..the question is whether Europe will find the
leadership during this time when the US pulls out .much like the time when Rome left Britain.
" but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push
all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting."
Knowing what we know of US military it would mean mostly bleeding and running towards the Channel
losing hardware and status of so called "hyper" whatever in the process. Take away nuclear weapons
and USA is clearly not a threat to Russia.
American land forces never were serious contented compared to USSR and with 90′s mess reversed
things are back to normal state of affairs which means Russian land forces asserting normal state
of dominance along Russian borders.
EUrabia! Evolutionary process in reverse. Except for Austria and Switzerland, the rest of them
are terminally disgusting, particularly the Scandinavian harlots and the Baltic Chihuahuas. Vicky
Newland was right: F *** k the EU!
@Johan Nagel He is the President of the USA! Not of the world. So stop your ramble, and sit
down. Trump kick A*s. Who cares what the 'world' thinks, we don't care who their leaders are,
or who they voted for, we have Trump, and that is that!
Actually MOAB is just a fat airblast bomb (not thermobaric aka fuel-air, aka
"vacuum bomb", why even have a MOAB? I guess "because you can"), apparently fitted with a hard
cone so that it burrows a bit.
" but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would
push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting."
Yeah, I have a problem with that one too. I don't see such chivalry coming from US – assuming
90% of the fighting to save Europe. NATO was designed with one purpose only – to defend US and
no one else. Anybody who believes otherwise – doesn't live in the real world.
In the 68 years of NATO existence, the only country to ever invoke article 5 was – you guess
it – US. Article 5 means asking for help from other NATO members to come to your defense when
you are attacked. So US asked for help because they were "attacked" in Afghanistan.
That's like me going armed into a bank and trying to rob it, and then complaining that I was
"attacked" by the security guard. NATO was simply an early version of the theorem: We fight them
over there, so we don't have to fight them here. "Them" in this case being the Russians, instead
of the terrorists. Like the Russians were ever planning to cross the Atlantic to fight the Americans
"here". Then again, when was the last time paranoia was rational anyway?
Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'
President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety
across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the
agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework
agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be
spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.
The money Changers's propaganda has always spread lies that have been the exact opposite of
their actions. Trump probably had to buy in or he wouldn't be President and his Jewish son-in-law
is there on keep an eye on him. He is changing our foreign policy to the extent that he isn't
pursuing regime change in Syria even though we have boots on the ground.
Trump's actions are intentionally rude towards some and, contrary to belief in some circles,
he's not mad, just flabergasting.
I believe that, despite the fact that we have been a fascist economic state since the Origins
of the Truman Doctrine and the build up of the MIIC, Trump didn't become a billionaire because
he's clueless. I'm in favor of his actions, so far. He has said screw the Globalist and screw
the wasted-brains-EPA.
Everything in the world is controlled by Money Grabbing Economy Controllers so Trump will have
issues getting his MAGA agenda but his foreign policy, despite the Syria hiccup, is acceptable.
After decades of our forces killing millions of civilians, if Syria lost a few at that airbase, well.. it
could have been worse.
I don't agree with everything but the author gets a "respected" from me.
@Johan Nagel "The man has a global reputation of a human pig, a racist, a misogynist, a bigot
"
For which there is no proof, only the elitist leftist MSM's unhinged wishful thinking. Harvard
Study: Two Thirds Of Americans Believe Mainstream Media Is 'Fake News'
Donald Trump: "Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they
don't mention names it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake
news writers. #FakeNews is the enemy!"
Your critique of Saker's evaluation of Trump is basically grounded deeply from within the matrix,
whose prisoner you seem to be. Yes, Trump is widely painted to be "a laughing stock globally,
despised, cringed at, as are the people who voted for him" but no, that is the view that the mass
media has been dishing out. It is not true, simply not true, even though many have swallowed it
along with a whole load of marbles.
You are basically paraphrasing Clinton when you jeer "the people who voted for him".
Yes, these "despicable folk" did vote Trump into power, and yes they might well do so again. You
do not seem to understand the processes at work here: part democracy, part a revolt of the people
sickened by the one-sided narrative propagated in the media.
"... Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed. ..."
"... (she appears to be the picture of health now) ..."
"... (along with Russians!!!!) ..."
"... The 'fake news' frenzy is both a mechanism used to create the appearance of pressure on a faux populist President and a distraction from the the REAL news: the fake election. Seen in this light, 'fake news' was both inevitable and a smart media strategy. ..."
"... The rot runs deep. Citizens must develop a keen understanding of history and be as discerning of their news sources as they are of their food sources. Question everything. The passage of Citizens United that allowed almost unlimited money in politics, makes the election of a 'populist outsider' is nearly impossible. But a faux populist is nearly certain to be elected. ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up.
Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of
the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that
Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was
installed.
Evidence
Sanders as sheep-dogBlack
Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . Sanders made it
clear from the start that he ruled out the possibility of running as an independent. That was
only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep' into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
>> "Enough with the emails!"
>> Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
>> Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
>> Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
>> Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
>> Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
Trump as Clinton protege
Trump knew the Clinton's for years and was very friendly with them. His daughter Ivanka is close
to Chelsea. He supported Hillary's Presidential run in 2008 – even taking up the 'birther' nonsense
that she started so as to weaken Obama (just as 'fake news' now weakens Trump).
Trump has done several things that have played into the hands of his 'fake news' critics, while
doing other things that have alienated his base. These "own goals" are hard to explain. Like keeping
Comey in his Administration and hinting that he taped conversations with Comey, etc. Trump has
effectively turned the Russian witchhunt into an investigation into obstruction of justice.
Hillary – playing along
Hillary ran a very poor campaign for someone that has been in politics for a lifetime and has
the support of the sharpest minds in politics (including her husband).
The NY Post deemed it, "The Worst Campaign Ever" .
Media rumors that Hillary was ill reached a high point when she was lifted into a van on 9-11.
The frenzy over Hillary's health came and went in a matter of weeks but these bogus concerns
(she appears to be the picture of health now) :
1) gave Hillary an implied excuse for having run a poor race (along with Russians!!!!)
, and
2) helped to quell partisan outrage when Trump said – within days of winning the election –
that he wouldn't prosecute Hillary.
3) Despite her character flaws, collusion with DNC, and disastrous election showing, Hillary
is still on top and aids and associates (like VP Biden) make excuses for her. Why do powerful
people tip-toe around the Clintons like that?
Fake News
Why is the irresponsible journalism of 'fake news' so prevalent. Why are journalists, historians,
politicians, and pundits so caught up in promoting it? In short, why has our society gone crazy?
The 'fake news' frenzy is both a mechanism used to create the appearance of pressure on a faux
populist President and a distraction from the the REAL news: the fake election. Seen in this light,
'fake news' was both inevitable and a smart media strategy.
TRUMP COULD END THE 'FAKE NEWS' ABOUT RUSSIAN ELECTION MEDDLING BY POINTING TO OTHER COUNTRIES
WHOSE MEDDLING IS MUCH MORE PERVASIVE, LIKE SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL. But he doesn't.
Implications
The rot runs deep. Citizens must develop a keen understanding of history and be as discerning of
their news sources as they are of their food sources. Question everything. The passage of Citizens United that allowed almost unlimited money in politics, makes the election
of a 'populist outsider' is nearly impossible. But a faux populist is nearly certain to be elected.
"... The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack. ..."
"... That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable. ..."
"... The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack. ..."
"... In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone." ..."
"... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country." ..."
"... of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake. ..."
"... For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit ..."
"... Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space. ..."
"... Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out? ..."
"... It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them. ..."
"... One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead. ..."
"... It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. ..."
"... Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself . ..."
"... The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself. ..."
"... Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. ..."
"... A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope. ..."
"... i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person.. ..."
"... bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on... ..."
"... Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder? How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see. AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25 @jfl | 8 Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic. xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26 Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example. ..."
"... A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. ..."
"... Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with. ..."
"... "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. " ..."
"... b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program ..."
The campaign of the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been targeted by what appear
to be the same Russian operatives responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials before
last year's American presidential election, a cybersecurity firm warns in a new report.
...
Security researchers at the cybersecurity firm, Trend Micro, said that on March 15 they spotted
a hacking group they believe to be a Russian intelligence unit turn its weapons on Mr. Macron's
campaign -- sending emails to campaign officials and others with links to fake websites designed
to bait them into turning over passwords.
The group began registering several decoy internet addresses last month and as recently as
April 15, naming one onedrive-en-marche.fr and another mail-en-marche.fr to mimic the name of
Mr. Macron's political party, En Marche.
Those websites were registered to a block of web addresses that Trend Micro's researchers say
belong to the Russian intelligence unit they refer to as Pawn Storm, but is alternatively known
as Fancy Bear, APT 28 or the Sofacy Group. American and European intelligence agencies and American
private security researchers determined that the group was responsible for hacking the Democratic
National Committee last year.
The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers"
just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes
with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was
even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack.
That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil.
Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks.
They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They
are generally
not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but
collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in
the wild" they are no longer attributable.
That isn't just me saying so. It is the head of France's cyber security
agency :
The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President
Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group
behind the attack.
In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the
Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."
He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for other
attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this
alone. They could be in any country."
If, as the NYT claims, the authors of the attack on the Macron campaign were the same as in the
Clinton case then the Clinton campaign was likely not hacked by Russians.
That will of course not hinder Clinton to claim that "the Russians" were the ones who caused her
to lose the election. Clinton has by now
listed 24 guilty persons and organizations that caused her loss. She is not one of them.
In her latest Clinton
suggested that Russia or Trump were somehow behind a deliberate inflation of his numbers of twitter
followers through the use of bots, because [Trump's] European and Middle East tour had been a
flop.
'Who is behind driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions?' she said.
'We know they're bots. Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to influence others?
What is the message behind this?
The Clinton claim of "driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions" is
fake news based on a hoax. Twitter Audit , where Clinton got the bot numbers from (h/t
@LutWitt ),
says that of the current
15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake.
For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit finds that 51%
of its 30 million+ followers are real. Not a great margin but still better than Clinton.
Clinton once famously said "
We came, we saw, he died" and
laughed (vid). She was talking about the murder of Muhammad Ghaddafi of Libya. She still does
not understand why people might be turned off by her vile character. She should take more time to
talk with
her daughter . Chelsea for one does not like gags about killing presidents:
Hillary Clinton lost it
(vid - see her off-the-meds rants on the election starting at 12:00 min). She needs a vacation
on some lone island and a long period of silences in some remote cloister. Anything she adds now
only reflects badly on her.
Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from
the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories
and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the
space.
The Macron team has been brilliant in manipulating the French media. When the hack happened, every
single gov and non gov media was blaming the Ruskis, so that ppl voted Macron blindly thinking
great he is anti "popovs". But for a guy who believes himself the new De Gaulle, they'll be suprised...
Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even
remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact;
there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order.
How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails
related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort
them out?
It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most
politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include
sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying,
misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well
as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the
atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them.
One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions
on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser
that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto
others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic
when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask
questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them
to lead.
It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published
correctly. Wikileaks kept a distance from the leak except an ambiguous comment by Assange. Since
that comment Wikileaks kept quiet.
The fact that it was published so late with nobody having the chance to look through probably
means there was nothing in it, just hoping that people might assume something to be there.
Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that
supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts
some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the
US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine.
"The worst thing that had happened to the leaders of the rebellion was that in the end Mr.
Rutskoy and Mr. Khasbulatov, the leaders of this anti-Eltsin section, seeded control over the
opposition to radical nationalists, Antisemites and paramilitaries that in the end ruled Russia
in the White House and the Parliament building", he said.
These people captured the Moscow city hall, which is right across the White House, and attempted
to cease Russian television in Ostankino. The events made Boris Yeltsin convince the army to
go for the operation. On October 4, he ordered the army to storm the parliamentary building.
The leaders of the resistance were arrested.
The "West" does not mind
supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself.
Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the
legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. The red line that she crossed was
her criticism of the DNC's data analytics. This spurred a raft of recriminations: Obama starved
the DNC; poor Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to work with. Hillary had the data that Michigan,
Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in trouble and did nothing. The Democrats are a party in real trouble.
but the Bulgarian paper which gave the name of the so called FSB guy published some mails and
pointed to the metadata as possibly leading very easily to the xerox machines used to make some
of the pdf in the files there was a retweet by wl on the day after which was about a french guy
who had put a link to the place where the files were pubished and immediately received a lawyer's
letter anyway the frenchies don't read english, so it is not about the time between the publication
and the election, but for the perfect blackout in the msm and good reactions of the culprits (we've
planted fakes) and for the fact they are not interested in the internet outside french borders
A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation
is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher
to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in
it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope.
bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand...
wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game
they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the
planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on...
"Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck's office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual
who was apparently using a 'robotic and genderless' voice changing device, sniffing around
with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit - based
on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary
Clinton's campaign 'to perpetrate a fraud on the public.'
After a brief chat with the law firm's secretary, the 'mysterious' voice-masking caller
concluded the call with an 'Okey dokey.'
And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the
caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz' Aventura office!"
Police said the resident of the southern city of Ashkelon was the subject of a months-long
undercover investigation by police's Lahav 433 cyber unit and the FBI. It said in a statement
that the motive behind the bomb threats was unclear. Police said he is 19 years old, but several
Israeli media outlets reported him as 18.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the suspect allegedly placed dozens of threatening
phone calls to public venues, synagogues and community buildings in the US, New Zealand and
Australia. He also placed a threat to Delta Airlines, causing a flight in February 2015 to
make an emergency landing.
"He's the guy who was behind the JCC threats," Rosenfeld said, referring to the dozens of
anonymous threats phoned in to Jewish community centers in the US over the past two months.
The hoax calls were widely regarded as acts of anti-Semitism. The threats led to criticism
of President Donald Trump's administration for not speaking out fast enough. Last month, the
White House denounced the threats and rejected "anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest
terms."
...
Rosenfeld said the man used advanced technologies to mask the origin of his calls and communications
to synagogues, community buildings and public venues. He said police searched his house Thursday
morning and discovered antennas and satellite equipment.
Same tribe, same dirty tricks. They act as if all their crimes will never catch up to them.
Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself
is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt
to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind
the Seth Rich murder?
How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are
about to see.
Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election
campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated
in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're
not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example.
A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy
software. Even last year their products that are supposed to protect their users against virusses
and remote attacks in fact facilitated these: "PCs running Trend Micro's Windows antivirus
can be hijacked, infected with malware, or wiped clean by any website, thanks to a vulnerability
in the security software."
and "Because the password manager was so badly written, Ormandy found that a malicious script
could not only execute code remotely, it could also steal all passwords stored in the browser
using the flaws in Trend's software – even if they are encrypted."
My thoughts, too. After juggling so many schemes and dark deals over the years, the liar's
mind just cracks up. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the skunkworks at area 51 targeting her
with death rays.
Her family should get her into a comfy retirement before she does more damage to herself and
others. If her daughter wants to pick up the baton, that's fine. I hope she runs for a democrat
seat.
HRC and Trump both work for the same team. Clinton is doing her part by creating the illusion
there are actually choices between the two parties with her constant whining about the election.
Trump is doing his part by distracting the sheep with weird behavior, while his corporate cronies
ready the American sheep for a good shearing.
re: Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself
is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24.
I watched her May 31, 2017 live interview on youtube and my first thought was, "You clever
rascal, you are lying as fast as you can in order to taint the jury pool." No one ever said she
was stupid; evil, corrupt, soulless, yes. But never stupid.
In that bizarre Clinton clip, where she channels Julius Caesar (whom she still hopes to be)--clapping
her hands and shouting, "We came! We saw! He DIED!!!" on hearing the news that Gaddafi had been
raped and gutted with a bayonet by US-supported Al-Qaeda "rebels" whom she had visited in Libya
just a week before--the CBS reporter rhetorically asks her if Clinton thinks her own visit had
anything to do with this event. And Clinton amazingly answers: "It did." I had to play the clip
3 X to believe it. But that's what she actually said!
Hillary appears to be quiet depressed, still, and in denial but she really can't admit the truth
without completely pissing off her sponsors and future $500K a shot speaking gigs.
She can't come out and admit that the people didn't want her because she is a corrupt corporate/wall
st whore and war monger and that the Dem playbook of identity politics failed because neo-liberalism
has screwed over too many people. She can't admit that she has no personality and that she comes
across has cold, fake and contrived either.
She really has no choice but to keep pointing fingers elsewhere because admitting the truth
would be the end of her new career and the end of the political career she is pursuing for Chelsea.
The Green Climate Fund. $100 Billion a year to sit in the World Bank while a cartel decides
who to give/lend it to. Whatever the reason, Trump got this one right. I guess it depends on which
flavor of green you have in mind.
Clinton's orientation to more affluent voters produced a dramatic shift in the landscape of
American two-party politics in 2016. According to data from the American National Election
Survey (ANES), the Democratic Party won a majority of votes from the wealthiest 5 percent of
the white population for the first time since ANES began collecting data in 1948. Not only
did the Clinton campaign win amongst the wealthiest 5 percent of whites, she won by an overwhelming
margin, slightly greater than 10 percent. The Democrats won by wide margins among wealthier
sections of all racial groups.
On the other side, the poorest two-thirds of white voters supported the Republican candidate,
also for the first time in the ANES poll's 70-year history. The chart below shows the shift,
with the Republican margin of victory appearing higher on the Y-axis and the income percentile
groups listed from left to right on the X-axis, with the wealthiest 5 percent listed on the
right of each graph. The fact that the chart for 2016 has a downward trajectory highlights
the degree to which the Democratic Party has become the primary party of the affluent upper-middle
class.
the 'Democrats' in the usofa are like the 'Democrats' in thailand ... they've got the plutocrat
vote, and the wannabe plutocrat vote, sewed up. but that's not enough to get elected.
the thai 'Democrats' turn to coups to stay in power ... and now, so do the american Democrats.
starting off with a judicial coup, they hope.
will they go whole hog with tanks in the streets when that fails?
The Macron 'hack' was indeed curious. Maybe a sort of copy-cat-effort, like it has become fash
to hack pol e-mails? Odd - I haven't seen what the content is, is it just a lot of rubbish, is
the hack being ignored on purpose? Is all being covered up? Where is the material? Who is analysing
it? Sure I could hunt it up, the point is this all sank without much of a trace The media were
ordered not to publish:
Independent
Wikileaks - Assange - posted that they were looking at the stuff if they were real but did
not post anything after that. Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody
guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is
correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as
there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with.
"Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber
attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other
secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. "
b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms,
among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program
1. cuts to the chase: the paris accord has no teeth
2. notes that russia has yet to sign the accord itself
3. points out that serious, heavy lifting is required to deal with climate change
4. throws the rump a lifesaver ... implies that russia and the us might work together on 3.
i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
Posted by: jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51
That's true but, unlike Western leaders, Putin's most outstanding personal attribute is his
firm commitment to keeping quiet when he's got nothing to say.
Malcolm Turnbull is the perfect example... the longer his rambling speeches take to deliver,
the less solid info they contain.
It's a Neoliberal thing; long on verbosity - short on sane ideas.
"... The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one. ..."
"Hackers can be anywhere," Putin told Kelly. "They can be in Russia, in Asia even in America,
Latin America. They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States, who very skillfully and
professionally, shifted the blame, as we say, on to Russia. Can you imagine something like that?
In the midst of a political battle. By some calculations it was convenient for them to release this
information, so they released it, citing Russia. Could you imagine something like that? I can."
The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners)
on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation
. and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the
finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says that he's escaped multiple assassination attempts, and that
he and the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro -- who also faced many attempts on his life-conversed about
personal security.
Putin makes the disclosures to American filmmaker Oliver Stone in The Putin Interviews
, a four-part documentary that will air on Showtime starting June 12.In aclip from the documentary
that was shown on CBS This Morning on Thursday, the director of Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July
, among other films, says the American public doesn't have a full
picture of Putin.
WASHINGTON - A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is
caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour
in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is
a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.
Barack Obama in 2009. But also Donald J. Trump in 2017.
As Mr. Trump faces his most consequential decision yet as commander in chief - whether to send
thousands more troops to Afghanistan, where a truck bombing on Wednesday offered a brutal reminder
that the 16-year-old war is far from over - his administration is divided along familiar fault
lines.
The dispute pits two generals who had formative experiences in Afghanistan - Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster - against political aides,
led by the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who fear that sending in more troops would be
a slippery slope toward nation-building.
"They are going to be faced with the same questions we were," said David Axelrod, a former
senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss
in. "How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources?
What will the investment produce in the long run?"
The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial
Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance
from Mr. Bannon, an ardent nationalist, and other political advisers. In the West Wing, some aides
have taken to calling Afghanistan "McMaster's war."
Undeterred, General McMaster plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming
week, a senior administration official said. But as he does so, the Pentagon appears to be moving
toward a smaller recommendation, in which America's allies would supply half the new troops. Historically,
the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.
That proposal depends on nailing down commitments from NATO and other allies - a task that
former officials said had gotten harder after Mr. Trump's stormy visit to Europe, where he chided
allies for not paying their fair share of the alliance's upkeep and declined to reaffirm America's
commitment to mutual defense.
"Trump has made it harder, not easier, to follow the U.S. lead," said Douglas E. Lute, a former
ambassador to NATO who advised both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Afghanistan. "Questioning
U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way." ...
... Mr. Bannon, who was a powerful force behind Mr. Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate
accord, has recovered some of his influence in the wake of that debate. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's
son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia.
Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the
president gets genuine options.
Other officials may weigh in, too. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security and another
retired general, holds weight with Mr. Trump. His son was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Secretary
of State Rex W. Tillerson may be exerting behind-the-scenes influence already. The debate over
Afghanistan abruptly slowed down after officials at the State Department expressed concern that
General McMaster was "jamming through" a troop decision.
Still, Mr. Trump's heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics
viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration's troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton's participation:
its overemphasis on a military solution.
"This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F.
Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It
has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."
... But what about the political formula? How will Afghanistan be governed after we leave?
Will it remain under its current constitution? What role will there be for the Taliban? How will
power be shared between Kabul and the provinces? How about the most troublesome neighbor, Pakistan?
What will its role be? And what can the United States do to make the answers these questions come
out in a direction that does as little harm to our interests as possible? ...
... If there is going to be a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan unlikely as that may be,
it will come when the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan all agree on a rebalancing of the
government in Kabul, probably with a new constitution and probably either including the Taliban
in the new regime or giving the Taliban effective control of parts of southern Afghanistan in
some sort of federal system. ...
Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There
have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1951. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan
has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ... (Wikipedia)
"Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's
way."
The question to be asked is why the
USA elite fights all this wars of neoliberal empire expansion at the expense of American people.
They steal money from people. Huge amount of money. In order to help multinationals. And to create
a smoke screen and justification inflate anti-Russian hysteria. Now probably 70% of Americans
are adamantly anti-Russian like in good old days of Cold War. Very convenient for stealing even
more money for MIC and multinationals: "stealing money as a patriotic duty"
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting" - in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos,
destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate
us, because we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of
the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother
Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to
the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of
life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America,
using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The
way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same,
a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early
Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild
wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones
of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording
of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama,
and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling
spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation,
and thereby rule the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting
of false or misleading items in news media.
"Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't
know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too
critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could
be working for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas
power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation
dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and
who isn't a Kremlin agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little
sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism.
When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation,
the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel
law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then
anything must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their
own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of
RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't
stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that
running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem
is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is
driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really
is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and
language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when,
it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored
alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold
War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism -- a lie that has been the basis for so
many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is
supposed to oppose.
"... "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said. ..."
"... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change." ..."
"... Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said. ..."
...Kelly met Putin in St. Petersburg, the Russian president's hometown and his nation's
onetime capital, after sharing a
contentious discussion about Russia's attempts to hack the 2016 election
at the St.
Petersburg World International Economic Forum. Putin, a former KGB agent, has been painted
as the puppet master behind the challenge on November's voting.
U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Putin ordered the disruption of the
election. During the interview, Putin tried to dismiss the evidence by claiming that the
United States has a history of meddling in foreign elections.
"Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints
that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said.
Kelly pushed back at the assertion, saying it sounded like Putin's attempt to justify
his government's attempts to influence elections.
Putin demurred.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't
even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the
main political direction does not change."
Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the
"political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in.
"It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said.
The conversation later turned to a pre-campaign dossier that was purportedly collected
on Trump.
But Putin, who once worked as a KGB recruiter, alleged that he has no knowledge of such
a dossier.
"Where would we get this information from? Why, did we have some special relationship
with him?" Putin asked. "We didn't have any relationship at all. There was a time when he
used to come to Moscow. But you know, I never met with him. We have a lot of Americans who
visit us."
Responding to Kelly's unrelenting line of questions about reports of Russian interference in the
U.S. and European political systems, Putin reached for a controversial comparison, complaining that
blaming Russians for the U.S. election had become a cliché tantamount to the anti-Semitic idea of
"blaming the Jews."
"This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for
everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such
attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."
Instead, he said, Trump's opponents had to accept the election's result.
The tension mounted after an apparent fault in the translation track that translated Kelly's paraphrasing
of Trump's comments that he thinks Russia conducted cyberattacks on his opponents, to Kelly saying
"I think" Trump made that claim. "She thinks," Putin exclaimed, noting the issue required certainty.
Putin was also riled when discussing Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's undisclosed meetings
with two Trump allies-former national security adviser Mike Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"Should we not talk about improving tensions?" Putin asked. "What should an ambassador do? That is
his job. That is why he gets paid. He should hold meetings, discussing current affairs."
Putin turned even more combative when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage
spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage
unfavorably.
"... Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop". ..."
Russian president calls allegations of interference in US presidential
election 'useless and harmful chatter' at St Petersburg economic forum
Share on Facebook
Close
Vladimir Putin
has said the US needs to stop the "useless and harmful chatter"
about Russian interference in the presidential election, arguing that
-
Donald Trump
's electoral strategy was entirely responsible for his victory.
The Russian president added that this "attempt to solve internal political
issues using instruments of foreign policy" was damaging international relations.
"The problem is not here, the problem is within American politics. Trump's team
was more effective in the electoral campaign," Putin told the event's moderator,
the US television presenter Megyn Kelly.
"In all honesty, I myself sometimes thought that the guy was going too far, but
it turned out he was right: he found an approach to those groups of the population
and those groups of voters he counted on, and they came and voted for him," Putin
said.
Hillary Clinton's campaign team was blaming the Russians rather than admitting
its own mistakes, he said.
"It's easier to say we are not guilty, the Russians are guilty It reminds me
of antisemitism: the Jews are guilty of everything," Putin said at the end of his
comments, which drew titters from the audience.
"If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is
it really important who leaked it?" he asked, echoing his previous statements on
Russian hacking.
... ... ...
--
Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team
during the campaign and
transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building
relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you
guys just can't stop".
"Do we need to give you a pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill, really,
honestly. It's surprising," he said, raising a laugh even out of the impassive
Indian PM, Narendra Modi, who was seated next to him.
Austria's chancellor, Christian Kern, and Moldova's president, Igor Dodon, also
took part in the discussion.
Besides praising Trump's electoral campaign, Putin refused to condemn the US
president's
decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord
, making light of the
issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really "in a
position to halt climate change".
"Somehow we here aren't feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we
should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St
Petersburg], it's rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American
imperialism," Putin joked.
Putin told Kelly, in English, "Don't worry, be happy," assuring her that the
agreement would take effect in 2021, so there was still "plenty of time to reach
an agreement".
It wasn't clear what he was referring to in this comment, since the accord took
effect in November 2016.
One area where Putin was critical of Trump's policy was regarding the US
president's demand that Nato members raise their military spending to 2% of GDP.
"If they aren't planning to attack anyone, then why increase spending? That of
course worries us," Putin said.
"... "Look at your colleagues, what they are doing here," Putin told NBC journalist Megyn Kelly, who was asking questions at the forum. "They are all over our domestic policy, they're sitting on our head, dangling their feet and chewing a bubble gum. Entertaining themselves. It's a systematic, rude and absolutely unceremonious interference in our domestic policies that lasts for many years, also at a diplomatic level," he said. ..."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has largely resorted to irony at the St. Petersburg International
Economic Forum (SPIEF) as reporters seemingly failed to come up with new questions, focusing on Moscow's
alleged meddling in the US elections, and Donald Trump. 'No secret deal'
There have been no secret agreements between the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak
and the Trump administration, Putin said at Friday's Q&A session in St. Petersburg. the president
told the forum, adding that he was surprised with all the fuss surrounding the work of the Russian
diplomat in the US and calling anti-Moscow allegations "delirious." "It's not even clear where all
the people spreading such information come from... So, the ambassador meets someone. And what is
an ambassador supposed to do? It's his job, he's being paid for that. He must be meeting people,
discussing pending issues, making agreements. What else is he supposed to do there? Visit some venues
that would then see him fired?" Putin wondered.
The panic surrounding some of Trump's decisions is blown way out of proportion, Putin noted at
the forum. Commenting on the US president's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement,
the Russian leader joked that now any weather-related issues can be blamed on
"By the way, we should be thankful to President Trump. I've heard it has been snowing in Moscow
today, and here it's raining, and terribly cold. Now we can blame it all on him and on American imperialism,
hold them accountable," Putin said. "But we will not do that,"
Those who accuse Moscow of the defeat of the US Democratic Party in last year's elections behave
like those who blame the Jews for everything, the Russian president said.
"It's easier to say that it's not our [US Democrats'] fault, but Russians' fault, say that they
interfered with the elections... It reminds me of anti-Semitism, when everything is Jews' fault.
Someone is a mutt, can't do a thing, but the Jews are to be blamed. But we know where such an attitude
leads to, it never ends well," Putin said.
"hysteria" which the US "fails to cease." the Russian president said.
'Western media always meddling in Russian politics'
The Russian president also called on the West to stop meddling in Russia's domestic policies.
"Look at your colleagues, what they are doing here," Putin told NBC journalist Megyn
Kelly, who was asking questions at the forum. "They are all over our domestic policy, they're
sitting on our head, dangling their feet and chewing a bubble gum. Entertaining themselves. It's
a systematic, rude and absolutely unceremonious interference in our domestic policies that lasts
for many years, also at a diplomatic level," he said.
Having called NATO "an instrument of US foreign policy," the Russian president said that
the lack of "constructive dialogue" with the military alliance impedes joint efforts on fighting
terrorism. Having wondered what is the purpose of the alliance if both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw
Pact are no more, the president said that the failed dialogue with NATO is not Russia's fault.
Asked to comment on reported disagreements within the alliance, Putin commented, with irony:
"Well, if you suggest that NATO could fall apart, then these [disagreements] would help
us. But so far we don't see it coming."
'Use Al-Qaeda today, it will be fighting you tomorrow'
Commenting on the Syrian issue, the Russian president said that the conflict in the Middle East
should "in no way be used as means to sort out [someone's] pressing political issues."
"And we sometimes see such attempts [in Syria]," Putin said, explaining that forces
within the country are being used by other foreign parties to fight Assad.
Putin pointed out.
The Syrian President, Bashar Assad, "might have made mistakes,"but the groups he's fighting
within the country "are no angels either," Putin said, adding that the latest chemical attack
in Syria was a provocation against the government.
"Regarding the people who were killed and suffered from weapons, including chemical weapons
– this information is false. As of today, we are totally convinced that it was just a provocation.
Assad did not use that weapon. It was all done by the people who wanted to blame him for it,"
Putin said.
"... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
"... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
"... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
"... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
"... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer
has a definable culture, language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully
self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare
call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia
isn't very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile
actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters
in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently
strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever
considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck
Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because
Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know
that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that.
The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem
to be to be increasingly
extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even
wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [
Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November
8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's
a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey
go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [
Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017].
The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated
to destroying General Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the
"Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and
power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or
at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks,
Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead
promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point
of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast,
cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members
of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does
not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class,
consists of various forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome to
Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing
the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War
nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity
is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two
reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people."
Are Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression:
referring to the United States shorthand
as "America" is
now designated as offensive . The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated by the media and
funded by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags
not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason"
but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy .
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea
of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a
global struggle for equality [
Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal
nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans
who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way
the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular
place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing
is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know,
actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of "
America First ,"
which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous .
The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat
to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia,
Carl von Clausewitz
violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces
in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying
Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia
that would unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people,
culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government
bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country.
We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation
so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off
the forces behind
this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration,
dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our
enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St.
Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."
Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not,
of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian
Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt
I and his war party of would be empire builders.
This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently
here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign
at all. PeakStupidity
here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?
"I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone
directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University."
- Buckley
We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times
and Washington Post.
"It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions,
more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really
the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run
the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage
his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .
Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov
Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed,
and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese
War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by
Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating
intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia
(* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated
by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt
was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured,
later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and
Pearl Harbour).
"Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese
war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately
failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's
came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while
in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in
large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on
1905.
President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government
"progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most
of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*.
According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This
means war .
[*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911,
first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of
the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive
activities)].
"In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt
to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote
in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency
would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution,
Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)
As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the
Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was
Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden
in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year.
The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.
The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror
that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions
would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild,
Schiff and their Junior partners.
Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend
list".
Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which
detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with
capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam.
And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism,
most Jews lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may
have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering,
and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists
like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would
they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the
Glob Virus.
Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford
around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.
Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump,
though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep
State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world,
the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.
High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:
Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia
Published on May 18, 2017
Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to
in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker
This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:
Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
[...] We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information
from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch
FOX News.
Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue
of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized
elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other
side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.
Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters
have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.
Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer,
conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York
mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire
Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike
Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.
Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political
parties.
Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned
by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land
are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would
do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason
to be against her.
Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified
information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny
that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that
had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript
of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter:
Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody
like that
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing
to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything,
in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
@Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.
@Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
He is just confused.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they
hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?
I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one
people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always
propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.
There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews),
but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.
I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American
identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians
or even Canadians have.
The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American
society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being
independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part
of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It
was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive
massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
– but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree'
button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.
Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.
If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to
drop the claims.
Just leave the occasional incidental.
Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The
facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been
mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.
Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill
no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration
into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never
been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase
St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities
of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those
chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist
Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read
for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American
identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception
of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as
being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to
what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still
be America.
You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China
or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem
only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being
a people is completely meaningless.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .
Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.
That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely
reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.
Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.
It is easy to look up.
Assad is an idiot.
He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients
are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is
up there, and is not a nest of idiots.
If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.
@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever
once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its
elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom
ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and
jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American,
Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American
identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first
the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog
society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual
or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social
group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than
melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.
There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army
- but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has
always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism,
materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material
goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity
either.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will
create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or
the Germans.
There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity.
I don't see it.
and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously
(from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?
You are an prime example of the data points we at
PeakStupidity use to prove that America
and the West has arrived at a global maximum.
The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become
the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond
the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age
of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being
played for fools.
@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until
the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy,
a Roosevelt creation.
He died in 1953, probably murdered.
Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow
removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that
the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.
@Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a
reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html)
....
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective).
@Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth,
described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's
not a good sign at all.
PeakStupidity here
is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
@What has changed in 2000 years?
A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was
Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.
Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire
Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting
to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book
in Japanese (also the below).
Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
I had never heard of that before.
It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40
years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of
Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of
the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.
The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly
misfired on their intentions.
So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?
It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded
earlier, perhaps that has a connection.
A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that
the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.
The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria,
how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero
(and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how
clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military
perspective). You will find it in:
Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation,
my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake:
'he slept through it all'.
Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his
essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the
foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom.
The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies,
radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American
friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China,
and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible
losses.
The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you
very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I
didn't have the wording right.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John,
but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never
win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all
want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day,
this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.
@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!
Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose
https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker
from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim
tool and has no real power??
@Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks
in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.
It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the
never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the
Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake
drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.
Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout
Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.
This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state.
This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky
about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America
should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy
via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about
Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.
Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks
away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed.
It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.
Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that
has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.
And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against
the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine,
Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.
Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on
Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords
or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.
Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about
Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting
that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness
of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America
as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military
power.
Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger
in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white)
multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't
like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.
Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing
the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic
conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.
US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic
and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing
venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz
was not Polish.
He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica.
He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back
to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.
Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets
to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those
military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only
qualification that they are not White.
I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes .
@Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's
mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in
trusting members of
the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any
amnesty was a bad deal for Americans.
Here is more regarding
Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted
by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working
class made in the 20th century.
Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal
immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.
So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.
"Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."
That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his
working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"
Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on
three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the
US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright
future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe
in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion
was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the
advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of
supremacist kind.
When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims"
have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?
@Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ
such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!
The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do
anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to
be against her.
Take a recent incident...
The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.
McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal
classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been
public for weeks.
Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump
didn't reveal any classified information.
Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President
and it's my right!
Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly
not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify
or not classify any and all information.
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes....
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that
never was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people.
I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke
session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting,
listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending
to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew.
Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS)
called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives"
refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?
Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.
Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long
since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through
to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when
the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most
Jews lost faith in communism.
After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of
power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the
oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate)))
really started for Russia.
It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism
being 'the use of power without any ideology'.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the
rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links
are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.
@Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all
I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other
links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion
to.
Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I
have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!
@Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence.
It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election
because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.
Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks.
It really is a mental illness at this point.
They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor,
but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping
up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.
Exactly, good point.
Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful
to Jews.
Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who
Jews claim 'let it happen'.
Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind
enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of
the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white
racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions
on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who
did next to nothing.
(((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic
or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against
us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging
whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf.
Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist
24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and
failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.
This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform
us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the
JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.
Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled
and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago
and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.
The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.
@Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure
you remember.
I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.
How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate.
Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.
@Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and
it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for
the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism
with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism.
Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the
truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews
lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany,
but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also,
the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.
Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially
as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination
in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European
nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.
So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass
control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist
Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin
winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have
kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and
this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like
Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland
for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty.
They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.
So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews
is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on
globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent,
defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism
makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support
for Putin in Russia.
In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national
people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.
Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public
Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in
the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion)
than with their own hurting kind.
These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized
by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
"Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "
Here we are.
Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.
Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as
King.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics
of the people.
American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today,
the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction
(induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.
The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what
you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to
do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable
culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
" mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least.
@Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt.
Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.
@jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.
What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large
part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.
Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making
America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they
knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled
by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.
It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly
sovereign state.
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The
likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion)
led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs
And you will most certainly ignore:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook
Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back.
The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed
at the beginning.
Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with
extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication
points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg
In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this :
https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/
@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.
The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized
abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural"
Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of
"me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak
and pathetic...
Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing
judge/creator"
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"
His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we
have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens.
Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths.
Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the
Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves
into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.
"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive
dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."
Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they
created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?
"...mass replacement immigration."
No.
"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it
what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites
to do the same to their people."
There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point
is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in
the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people
by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired
judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise
this controversial interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al
@jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition
of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the
D.C. operations and from folk's in power!
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with
the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born
White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view
it as genocide
America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as
Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions .and Rampage 82
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years
later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency
room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82 " go by it read it ..
The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives")
and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
"When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets
in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined
the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed
to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing
to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J.
Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information
to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited
them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility
to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely
between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261
@Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and
legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.
Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.
Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent
to be academic hack.
Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism
and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the
Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the
kindling of second wave feminism.
If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party
Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his
his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE
AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back
to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"
How would Melissa Harris Perry react?
How would Maxine Waters react?
How would the TATA Institute grads react?
How would Ciela Munoz react?
How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?
Paul Kersey
Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner
of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant
by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully
every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's
use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide"
which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and
coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation "
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization "
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life
changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time.
@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge
with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial
interpretation in Australia.)
As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....
Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism
and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by
importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion
of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important.
Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America.
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. You are correct.
Free will is paramount.
And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so
much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty
of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?
@Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
on LI.
In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old
style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's
scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El
Salavodor and Mexico
Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town
I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display
the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .
Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for
cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard
with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia
Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms
in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp
@Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open
genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."
The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.
"America is not a proposition nation..."
Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular,
"Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks
and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It
is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic
legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal
principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative
form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it,
to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants
must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you
libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the
demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington,
D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law
enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer
Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks
through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker,
and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer?
Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters
because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running
an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even
knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking
story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's
the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from
a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the
Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken
a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25
visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness
account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from
the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray)
who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no
interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian
slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own
country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case
they are dangerous and corrupt."
What Putin said yesterday:
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
Putin was being tactful, obviously.
Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The
same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the
scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on
both Americans and the world.
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it.....
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus
Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know
what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably,
the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.
One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he
were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for
some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European
hatred here?
And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.
Jesus said not to fear the first death.
Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.
Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self-
aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.
Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this
message.
But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire";
who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself
a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed
within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He
was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he
had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this
holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly
controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping
out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."
CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.
"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber
people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat
of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might
have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a
diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now,
quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being
a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.
"Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."
Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these
often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark
tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an
essential eternal part of human existence.
@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot
of holes in its foundations.
To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is
a bit absurd.
No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills
for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good
measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).
Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States.
His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental
positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency,
his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy,
and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many
other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of
a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all
shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.
As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking
what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American
history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.
Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the
winners are always the highest bidders.
Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for
Southern Independence.
America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their
way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out
of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason;
he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America
in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.
So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never
was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but
one to protect the wealthy and their needs.
There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself
while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward
spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to
protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the
complete degeneracy of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians
has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians
restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous
smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart
to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about
Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as
outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians
who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our
school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and
teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children
get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.
I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial
and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence
as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the
elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely
arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.
The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government
directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)
as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass
immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example,
are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for
at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where
English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban
centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded
policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide
or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."
Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination
of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing
personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.
"The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "
Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation
in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of
thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into
thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met
your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated,
I mean discussed, of their future duty?
(consistent with government directed sex "education,")
Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"plus no-fault divorce"
Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.
"and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"
Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.
"as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of
mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."
NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists
to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to
other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation
to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population.
The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians
and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced"
in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly
intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except
among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.
"Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester
where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham
(England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary
school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."
Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England,
your home nation. Promote what you believe in.
"Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might
be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the
"agent provocateur" function enabled."
From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has
been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family.
You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.
"One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."
Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other
posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News.
I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.
"Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"
False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are
people who are bitter and lost.
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in
front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a
typical National Review reader these days ."
Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?
Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?
@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for
it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach
is very well aware of this and likes it...
If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it
as genocide...
America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus
pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a
year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...
The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang
rape and executions....and Rampage 82...
Paul Kersey
Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous
Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives
and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years
later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of
the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's
vagina's...
John Derbyshire
I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage
82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that
roam thru society Join one today..
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think
most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-----
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front
of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical
National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement
of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's
something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being
against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
@Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew
commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse
and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.
Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life."
while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
well said Geo,
we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and
whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt
that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in
the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
@Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a
center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than
you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement
by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if
he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation,
and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I
agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable
to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the
jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering
my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort
at hand : Making it, the music, swing.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself
included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason
Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to
the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening
renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!
As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but
you cannot confirm it.
@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the
Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional
war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the
ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the
Russian expeditionary force regularly use.
Unfortunately Trump will have to
kill some Russians now
. Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because
the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and
Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like
speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world
is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene
spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter
and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy."
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in
scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years
to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself
in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret.
In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national
security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm
the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to
show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo
court."
@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater
to gays.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.
The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment
of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.
"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience
to even elaborate thereon.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz artist.
PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style
Jazz players coming out of Russia.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and
they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia
running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism.
@ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too
much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told
them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die,
handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the
Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries
fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will
turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of
Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).
Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.
The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives
I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not
quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical
communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual
communists?
@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly
diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed
in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?
In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're
liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.
In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually
believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).
The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with
really is just liberalism.
@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty
Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall,
they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in.
General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening
Russia.
There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main
Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great
Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally
senseless!
Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler
and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future
victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of
the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician. @why did he not rethink
Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman,
the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'?
So, he is not all-knowing. QED.
@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.
His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.
We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will
commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest
mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.
@Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military
secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action
those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose
only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death
penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian",
Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as
told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching
that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of
god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!
@Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.
Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her.
The media just needed someone as 'leader'.
Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of
long march through institutions.
Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term
'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with
communism"
Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these
characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as
stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact
is they will be the first to be purged.
You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they
are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running
the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm
at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because
they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia
refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but
they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was,
if not more so.
I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship
of the proletariat. Have you?
It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions
about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the
US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism.
The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international
bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.
@annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today
have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians
are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers,
and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors
fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is
so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There
are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight
for this country?
No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if
you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting
the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.
Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the
back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't
even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's
not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity
is something you can reject or opt out of).
As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own
(former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting
for you, if you'll have it.
We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous
are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence
more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of
these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker
party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy
is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting
question- the policy is clearly in error.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most
people are coming from on the issue you've raised.
While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.
It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are.
I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is,
actually doing.
One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the
following material they've posted on their website:
This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking
individuals)
The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These
differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave
the fabric of our pluralistic society.
For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept
by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's
premier human relations and civil rights organization.
If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote
diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's
leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition
benefits are available to Corporate Partners.
More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity.
They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."
Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the
perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while
damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.
While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic.
Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of
diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's
position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend
the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many
goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot
favour both at the same time.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up
their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors
to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from
promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this
this film will not have a happy ending.
-------------
P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's
why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice
of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that
is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal
intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.
Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!"
"yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.
So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make
up their minds and choose one of the following options:
1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its
doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or
2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist
from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.
Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism
for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do,
given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand
(which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic
agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical
note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might
find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the
20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the
other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists.
Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty,
and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he
was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.
@Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the
50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they
were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed
in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something
to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he
wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)
I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the
comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely,
would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.
Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this . Anti-European
advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish
ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism
and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.
I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact
that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process
of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies
and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The
role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews,
but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring
anti-Semitism.
Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions
or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter,
or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups,
black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.
"Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy
such as this."
False characterization.
"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that
because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It
is not."
It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful
destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is
the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat
grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are
conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of
people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies
for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering
our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there
would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination
and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of
the masses.
"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own
kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define
hate speech and racism."
That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular
group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty
to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to
question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in
place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's
a ruse.
no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating,
(with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents]
who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who
want to pay lower wages in general)
but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is,
at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the
US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that,
but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers
call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.
So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish
tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife,
while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people
exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.
There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial
swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience
is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only)
white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.
But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative
of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries
Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of
Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy
to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party
becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others
have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.
So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America
as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant
racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.
it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board
I can't argue with that Ken
and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration
policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like
they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.
They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews
but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided
some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground
under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.
what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?
Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright,
India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian
islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.
And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek
of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile,
amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet,
where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt
governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US,
that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are
by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering
resentment.
If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile
invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities
will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and
you're run out of your home in terror for your life.
There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to
protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white
places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle
with a vengeance.
how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and
"moral" sanction?
already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim
populations in these countries.
when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews
of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?
@Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the
most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge,
and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against
both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the
weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign
policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an
interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering
the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families"
@Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If
that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed
vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren
'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have
married outside our religion of birth.
have married outside our religion of birth
That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious
one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what
a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined
what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing
oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were
correct in their definitions.
Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference
or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO
@Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy
of th electorate
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white
house.
Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family
who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.
You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering
about.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the
white house.
Quite.
Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they
had hoped for.
However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day
of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which
the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it
would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)
Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD)
among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka
"narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for
the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR,
and for the shameless repetitive execution.
Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true,
long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are
working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)
Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks
in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about
sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject
country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.
Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate
speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through
publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification"
of "journalists," etc.?
What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there
REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY
subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do?
Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?
Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious
deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major
incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?
@CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans.
It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with
those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of
your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.
Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of
the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare,
Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland
of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the
Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling
elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out,
from the time of
Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government
as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.
Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
– vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
@Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse.
On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist.
You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists
of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy,
assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer
in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against
the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with
a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz
was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was
purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others
sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and
the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht
in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help
in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor
for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz
Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly)
for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track
appointment, that I abandoned after three days.
The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to
conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews,
it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion
that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to
go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.
Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions
of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish
interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion,
fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they
ran much
of Hollywood , were
among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had
massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to
determine
who holds many of the other seats in Congress .
None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an
American-firster.
@annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/
"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm
cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship
by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's
firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun
at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors
to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought
out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President
stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our
government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck,
who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious,
unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their
families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy
ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did
the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.
Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to
decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.
Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting
and waiting for the shift to collectivism.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it
is fact.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz musician.
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution,
when they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance
to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
@Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate
a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing"
is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection.
The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will
appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the
right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to
see.
I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I
am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.
* Here is one, just as a
random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might
as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.
@Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty
spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What
did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national
importance to Israel?
Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial
WHY of the operation.
Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around
the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite
several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety
and anonymity of retirement since then.
One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the
Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship
with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.
First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea.
Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government.
An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly
within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds
of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty
story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:"
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when
they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to
loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).
The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology.
They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.
The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US
moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.
" Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"
Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.
What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic
system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens
are voting for Colonel Sanders.
" The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state
of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.
The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals",
and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas
marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".
I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro
jazz artist.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has
been hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English
cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled
the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
"Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
" considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and
instructs students in this field"
So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms
the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"
This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons
who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the
qualification of "Philosopher".
Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but
none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever
with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro
jazz musician.
@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing
the crucial WHY of the operation."
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest
no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad
and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write
a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee]
is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough.
We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We
have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential
community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the
Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?
The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:
What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval
attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?
You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag
operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.
This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.
Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual
identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility
of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.
Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what
actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at
a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.
The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets,
but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.
Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea
attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is
unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.
So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?
Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership,
the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal
threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with
the U.S. to eliminate the threat.
How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military
intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either
pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local
command went rogue.
@Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics
and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the
world forward as and when it did."
You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons,
the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the
product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the
Enlightenment.
"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
Thank you for your opinion on this matter.
"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""
The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher",
considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs
students in this field.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.
First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been
hushed for many years.
yep
also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.
As was the Lavon affair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you
don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with
hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was
the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder
people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be
blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
@annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations.
Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's
Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have
sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned
Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive
mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious
and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes
and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have
full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria,
women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's
ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still
occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values. Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern
Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and
Tel Aviv for decades ."
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already
exhausted then.
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
" it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.
@annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines,"
one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of
course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would
be kept top secret even years later.
(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea
attack on the USS Liberty.
The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying
to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.
CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade
intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.
If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar
by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.
QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other
Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow
a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did
say in English "I am a philosopher."
Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose
faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."
This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to
make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking
academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in
the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking
philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis:
David Hume
, for example, or
George
Berkeley .
Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?
At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David
Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the
current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object
and purpose):
1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).
For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti
seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with
the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the
Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we
might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are
both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of
the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).
'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the
forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today,
surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced
by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many
other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:
Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions
in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American
experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies."
To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint
- vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening
as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of
Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason
why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations
from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it
is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions
balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL
Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians.
Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person
talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the
native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction.
@CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity,
but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are
of the following kind:
(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?
(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we
know of it and how?
(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?
(4) What is morality?
(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?
And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There
were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental'
philosophers have offered the answers.
Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The
safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of
a series of footnotes to Plato'?
One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a
person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."
Notice how ridiculous it sounds?
French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does
not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""
The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
"SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation
MH17″
http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight
MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian
pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was
a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because
neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."
as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed
on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.
However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a
combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained
in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the
attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.
In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second
about who launched the attack.
Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE
action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.
Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced
back to them within hours at the latest.
then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?
that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink
the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.
and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous
treason.
@annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population
and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and
Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic,
the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population
there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by
the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering
the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd
and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head
of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host
in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
@Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US-
Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was
going on. Duh.
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty"
of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people
have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and
be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.
We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called
back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but
twice.
So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose,
or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely
never know.
What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?
As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces
were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.
Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also
explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan
(i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).
"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate
obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's
government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran
in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."
@Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
but most of them are sloppy footnotes
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor
in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic,
no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia
has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual
endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things
- so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth,
either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.
You can see what sloppiness leads to.
@in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples,
please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal
immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.
In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is
(think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers),
restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment
programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law,
the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property
law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants
access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to
so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations
and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and
Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.
As for:
privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced
by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They
even have
listening lamp posts.
Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced
as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout,
mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick
knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom
pants, and on and on.
As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern
age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.
English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint,
privacy and secularism
It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution,
and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by
the educated class in the colonies.
The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages,
are neither here nor there for these purposes.
State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary
such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and
is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
Notable quotes:
"... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said. ..."
"... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
"... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking
them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
"... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first
submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with
sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without
"verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility
in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman
for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from
senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering
it as well.") ..."
"... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately
pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference.
The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position
on the issue. ..."
"... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from
parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.
..."
"... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short
In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State
Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials
to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they
took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic
sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation
for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department
officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block
the move, the sources said.
"There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said
Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions
policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he
received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed
to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"
Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin,
D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move
quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President
Trump to remove them.
Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former
colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange
a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand
bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before
he left office
announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses
under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.
The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy
moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.
It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators
in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner,
and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications
with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals
that began circulating right after the inauguration.
A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia
sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the
sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have
mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage
of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.
To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret
during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along
with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News
interview ."I would love to try it."
But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching
the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians
to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during
the 2016 election.
Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's
seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop
a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation
in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were
to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including
the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore
- that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage
purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration,
according to
a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this,"
the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians
call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without
some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.
Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures
in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said
one source, who asked not to be identified.
These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political
appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional
allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively
locking them in place - before Trump could lift them
The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham
introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without
first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded
with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions
without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all
credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement.
(A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator
did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already
been considering it as well.")
The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national
security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during
the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't
take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm,"
Malinowski said.
But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are
separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election
interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's
position on the issue.
In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways
the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results
from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them
each year.
"I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security
Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump
would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday during a panel at the St. Petersburg
Economic Forum that the US investigations into whether the Kremlin meddled in the US
election are nothing more than "hysteria," and that the anti-Russia sentiment in the US
was about as virulent as anti-semitism. "It's like saying everything is the Jews'
fault," said Putin, who said the blame for Hillary Clinton's November loss lies squarely
at the feet of the Democratic presidential candidate and members of her party,
according to a report.
"This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for
everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we
know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."
Putin, who was being interviewed by NBC's Megyn Kelly, brushed off questions about
meetings that members of the Trump campaign - including then-Sen. Jeff Sessions - had
with Russian officials such as ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
"
So our ambassador met someone. That's his job. That's why we pay him,"
Putin said. "So what?
What's he supposed to do, hit up the bars
?"
Putin was amused when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage
spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their
coverage unfavourably.
"Let's end this," Putin told her. "You will feel better and we will feel better."
Donald Trump won because he had run a more effective presidential campaign than Hillary
Clinton, Putin said, adding the US intelligence agencies may have faked evidence of
Russian hacking, according to Reuters. Allegations of Russian involvement were nothing
more than "harmful gossip," Putin insisted, there were no "Russian fingerprints" on the
alleged hacks,
Reuters reported.
Earlier this week,
Putin denied the Russian state had directed any hacking
operations designed to influence the U.S. election
– though he did say Russian
"patriots" could have been behind the plot on their own, Fox reported.
Following President Donald Trump's decision Thursday to take the US out of the Paris
Climate Accord talks, Putin said that there's still time to reach a deal on the 2015
pact even without the US's involvement, before adding, in English, "don't worry, be
happy,"
according to Reuters.
Despite the critism that has been heapened upon Trump by
other world leaders
since he announced his decision to leave the accord last night,
Putin said that he "wouldn't blame Trump" for leaving the accord
,
though he hoped the White House would set its own climate rules.
"
By the way, we should be grateful to President Trump. In Moscow it's
raining and cold and even, they say, some snow. Now we could blame this all on
American imperialism, that it's all their fault. But we won't.
"
And though he said he hopes that US sanctions against Russia would soon be lifted, he
noted that they did have some positive effects.
"We had to use our brains,"
Putin said. "Not rely on oil and gas dollars."
Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin have dogged the new
administration since before the inauguration. In recent weeks, US media have taken aim
at Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner,
whom NBC and WaPo reported was a "person of interest" in the FBI' campaign.
As a reminder, Kelly is set to interview Putin in St. Petersburg Friday for a Sunday
night special that will
air on NBC.
For those disaffected Hillary snowflakes looking for some
level of concrete, tangible evidence from today's Senate
testimony from the "intelligence community" that "Russian
Hackers" purposefully colluded with President-elect Trump to
steal the 2016 election from Clinton, we have some bad news:
your desire for evidence required to start World War III
over your candidate's loss has still not been fulfilled.
Better luck next time.
As we suspected, today's testimony
offered up by James Clapper and others of the "intelligence
community" to the Senate's Armed Forces Committee has
largely been nothing more than another smear campaign rife
with political rhetoric but light on facts and tangible
evidence.
Asked whether Julian Assange was credible,
Clapper, who ironically has lost all
credibility throughout this process with his
rapidly evolving story line, was quick to
confirm in the negative. Per
The Hill
:
When asked if Assange was credible,
Clapper responded with a very noticeably
annoyed look, "Not in my view."
Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, commander
of U.S. Cyber Command and director of
National Security Agency responded, "I
second those comments."
Meanwhile, other comments aimed at Julian
Assange drew some expected criticism from
Wikileaks
... ... ...
Clapper, apparently interviewing for a
commentator spot at MSNBC, warned that
hacking wasn't the extent of the efforts by
Russia to meddle in the 2016 election which
also included coordinated efforts from RT,
and other "fake news" outlets, to exploit
any "fissure they could find in our
tapestry."
"
RT was very active in promoting
a particular point of view, disparaging
our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights, etc
. Whatever crack,
fissure they could find in our tapestry,
they would exploit it,"
... ... ...
..and warned against
retaliatory efforts saying
that
"we and other
nations conduct similar acts
of espionage."
"As I say,
people in glass houses
need to think about
throwing rocks. This was
an act of espionage. And
we and other nations
conduct similar acts of
espionage."
Per a note
earlier this
morning from
The Hill
,
there are
five key
things to
watch for as
the hearing
progresses:
1.
How many
Republicans
will
criticize
Trump's
stance?
- Both John
McCain, who
chairs the
committee,
and Lindsey
Graham of
South
Carolina,
another
member of
the panel,
have been
vocal in
their
criticism of
Trump's
unwillingness
to blindly
accept the
rapidly
evolving
"facts"
presented by
the
"intelligence
community."
2. How
strong is
the evidence
that Russia
hacked the
DNC? -
After Julian
Assange
again
appeared on
Fox News
earlier this
week to
confirm that
his source
was not
Russia, or
any "state
actor" for
that matter,
the
"intelligence
community"
once again
changed its
narrative
this morning
to imply
that Russia
hacked the
DNC and John
Podesta then
provided
that
information
to Wikileaks
via a third
party.
Well, how
convenient
is that? We
look forward
to receiving
some
concrete,
tangible
evidence
from Mr.
Clapper on
this new
assertion.
3. What
evidence
does the
intelligence
community
have that
Putin wanted
to assist
Trump? -
The
CIA, without
supplying
any
evidence,
reportedly
believes
that Russia
was
explicitly
trying to
help Trump -
raising
politically
explosive
questions
about the
degree to
which it
succeeded.
Meanwhile,
the White
House has
stopped
short if
that
conclusion
telling CNN
that
"President
Obama and
this
administration
is 100
percent
certain in
the role
that Russia
played in
trying to
sow discord
and
confusion
and getting
involved,
through the
cyber
domain, in
our
electoral
process."
Will
any actual
evidence of
collusion
between
Trump and
Russian
officials be
presented?
4. How much
will the
public get
to see - and
when? -
Will this
whole
charade just
be
more
political
rhetoric
,
which is the
only thing
the
"intelligence
community"
has provided
to date,
or will
actual
tangible
evidence
finally be
presented
to support
the "Russian
hacking"
narrative.
5. How much
will either
committee be
able to do?
-
With a
new
administration
taking over
in 15 days
will any of
this
actually
matter or is
it just a
last-ditch
effort to
delegitimize
the incoming
administration?
Of
course,
Trump has
maintained a
healthy dose
of
skepticism
of the
intelligence
community's
"facts." In
a series of
tweets
earlier this
week, Trump
accused
intelligence
officials of
delaying his
briefing
until Friday
in order to
build a case
against
Russia. He
also noted
comments
from
Wikileaks
founder
Julian
Assange who
has
repeatedly
said that
his leaked
material was
not provided
by the
Russian
government.
consider all of the supposed sources on the panel; the fact its even news, fake at that, is evidence enough the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants.
All we need is a Closet Homosexual like Graham leading us into WW3, some body please just out this guy with a photo so we don't get into a nuclear exchange.
The takeaway is that they would rather the 'election were hacked' than divulge how extensive and pervasive their big brother spying on every bit of communication traffic is. (Not that I think the election was hacked in the first place.)
"
They didn't change any vote tallies,"
Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the Intelligence Community can't - the choices that the electorate made. There's no way for us to gauge."
Hmmmm. Do they have a way of "gauging the impact" that our zio-controlled lying media may have had on the choices that the electorate made? Since this is a question of equal or greater importance, I just thought I'd ask.
McCain, Graham, clapper and the rest totally involved in the genocide of Libya and Syria along with Clintons, Soros, Sid Blumenthal, Petreaus, KKR-Halliburton, Mike Morell-zio, White Helmets fraud, Nato, Epstein and the rest. They all need to be put on trial and arrested. Evil evil scum.
I saw a video about JGs aka military attorneys which is what Graham was in the Navy or Naval Reserve. Supposedly they run a terror op and engage in a lot of the really dirty stuff that MIC, The Pentagram and Deep State enagge in.
the fake news about "Russian Hacking" originates from the NATO generation. They all are aware that is the first 20th century legacy institution on the chopping block.
All of the MIC sweating over their trillion $ war budget. Got to keep things hot to justify the waste. To many tapped out taxpayers asking too many questions.
The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic "waste." The term is pejorative, since it implies a failure of function. But no human activity can properly be considered wasteful if it achieves its contextual objective....
In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility.... In advanced modern democratic societies, the war system ... has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes. As economic productivity increases to a level further and further above that of minimum subsistence, it becomes more and more difficult for a society to maintain distribution patterns insuring the existence of "hewers of wood and drawers of water."...
The arbitrary nature of war expenditures and of other military activities make them ideally suited to control these essential class relationships.... The continuance of the war system must be assured, if for no other reason, among others, than to preserve whatever quality and degree of poverty a society requires as an incentive, as well as to maintain the stability of its internal organization of power.
This bullshit Russian interference narrative and politicized investigation is more sour grapes meant to discredit Donald Trump's election victory!
*
The anti-Trump protests and street riots didn't work.
*The Jill Stein recount failed miserably and actually gave Trump more votes!
*Death threats to intimidate the Electoral College failed.
*Now it's the fake news that "Russia did it".
Where is the investigation on all of this?
It's already out from a close friend of Julian Assange that it was a disgruntled Bernie Sanders DNC insider that "leaked" the emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and NOT Russian hacking. Maybe Seth Rich? The Obama Administration is ignoring this and continuing with its idiotic "Russia did it" narrative which is "fake news". Donald is right, not one shred of real and credible evidence.
Assange said that a 14 year old could have hacked John Podesta's emails!
This is just a vague circumstancial case to justify the fake Obama narrative to discredit Donald Trump's election victory.
Fuck Obama, fuck crooked Hillary......15 more days libtards!
aliki •Jan 5, 2017 1:09 PM
take-away was simple
mccain & lindsey are ass-hurt nobody picked them to play president for the next 4 years
as a result, they want war with russia, iran, china, north korea
id love nothing more than for trump to fire them by executive order
its ironic to hear a pair of clowns say how assange has put our troops in harms-way
coming from a pair of guys who never met a country they wanted to bomb & follow-up with an invasion
then they talk about countries wanting to ruin our democratic process
coming from the guys who had the cia train rebels to overthrow assad, overthrew saddam, tried to overthrow everyone in iran, kim-jon, stacking troops/tanks on the russian border
fucking histerical
the democrats have no idea why they lost
the republicans have no idea why they won
the usa has jumped every shark in the ocean. there are about three people who believe the russian meme and these zionazis can't stop over selling a dead meme. what are they up to? there is no election for another 2 years and trump is not going to war with russia. all they are doing to making sure their legacy depicts them as the craven fools they are.
This is show time. Sources and Methods be damned. Kennedy showed the reconnaissance photos of Russian Missiles in Cuba.
This demonstration is the super bowl. There is no tomorrow for them if they can't convince us they are not lying,
so there is no point he holding back. Snowden might be an interesting source for this. His knowledge is a bit stale
now, but he knows that the NSA can do, and if there is no forthcoming NSA public evidence, nothing redacted, then Clapper, et. al. lied before congress and should be prosecuted.
Lets have a confrontation the Russian experts in public like Kennedy did over the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is
the Super bowl. There is no game tomorrow for these guys if they can't produce convincing evidence now. The moment
the intelligence services are invented for. is NOW.
I heard nothing today but bloviating. They did not even go into that Cozy bear Fancy bear crap. That story falls apart in your hands. Now there tack is that the Russian wanted us to know it was them so they were sloppy.
Clapper, Graham, and McCain can be guilty of presenting false testimony to congress, or can be put under oath and ambushed into making statements they knew were false.
The biggest problem today was reality. Fuck it must be hard trying to convince an entire globe that we should be going to war without any facts or truth to anything. I can't believe these clowns actually sat through this like they were somehow relevant. How doesn't someone stand up in the middle of this and just say "Come on guys, really, come on. This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't continue to make shit up. Come on. Seriously."
"Older men start wars, but younger men fight them." ~ Albert Einstein
"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die." ~ Herbert Hoover
"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." ~ George S. McGovern
The other day, I saw one of those bumper stickers that says, "War is Not the Answer". It's a silly bumper sticker because it provides an "answer" but fails to provide the corresponding question. Yes, I know it's a Liberal thing but what they should be saying is that, Government is Not the Answer because, for government, war IS the answer. For government and for those in government, war means power, and wealth, and influence. For the rest of us, war means only death and destruction and poverty.
OMG, he's got nothing. Clapperclaimed today thathe's "ready" to brief Trump with his evidence. We're all still waiting. I'm so glad someone is taking these intel weenies to task. They've been hiding behind their secrecy for decades saying whatever they want with zero repercussions as they always deter to need-to-know tactics to silence all questions. Well, a new day has arrived, IC. You will learnthe word ACCOUNTABILITY. You might have to look it up.
How this guy isn't in prison is beyond me.He's a known liar in front of congress. What, did they really have the audacity of swearing him in again? He, Graham, McCain ad Ryan are all squealing like frightened rabbit being pulled out of their holes.This stance of "listen to me because I'm important" rhetoric has lost its luster. People are finally wising up to their crap. Put up or shut up, Clapper.
Well, that confirms it. The "Intelligence Community" leadership (and I use the term "intelligence" and "leadership" rather loosely) of Clapper, Brennan and Morel set off the alarm based on no factual evidence for political purposes, trying to trap Trump with the American flag and the red menace just like they did to GW Bush on the Iraq WMD and to the nigga with ISIS the JV team. They did this solely to help Hillary with her donors and hurt Trump.
Time to clean out the 17 intelligence agencies and ODNI. You can't trust the analysts and there's too few in the front lines doing real HUMINT.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting this déjà-vu feeling all over again (to paraphrase Yogi). This ridiculous idea that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump, by hacking and other means, sounds eerily familiar to the WMDs that Iraq supposedly had, that Colon (sic)Powell, et-al, used as an excuse to lead us towar(s) thatare now going on two decades. Fine and dandy against a third world country, fighting with decades old weaponry, never mind that it's taken the life of many brave, young, gullible Americans, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but it's a whole different ball game against the Russians. Any type of conventional war against Russia is suicide (if in doubt, ask Napoleon, or Hitler) and if there is a conventional war and either side starts losing, the war goes nuclear and we are all fucked. The only saving grace is that most have us have seen this movie before and hopefully we're not stupid enough to fall for this plot the second time around, because if we do, there ain't going to be a third.
"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using
anti-Russian slogans,"
"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case
they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."
what is really interesting that there were only a couple of sane individuals (Jack
Paper , Wilfred_Blake,
PT come to mind ) and in the
whole discussion thread. The level of hysteria is really incredible and remind me of Stalinist Russia.
People are so brainwashed into new McCartyism, that Senator McCarthy is he would know, probably is really
proud and little bit envious at the results achieved. This collective Senator McCarthy that MSM now
represent proved to be more dramatically efficient
Notable quotes:
"... Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria. ..."
"... "This assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security." ..."
"... So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example. ..."
"... Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe. ..."
"... So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war. ..."
"... On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct. ..."
"... I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta ..."
"... Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. ..."
"... Why did you kill her? ..."
"... Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? ..."
"... You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. ..."
"... My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace. ..."
"... And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat. ..."
"... I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible. ..."
"... I mean for Christ's sake. Have you watched Carter Page on television? ..."
"... Correction, May 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the Moscow hotel mentioned in the dossier was the St. Regis. It was the Ritz-Carlton. ( Return .) ..."
"... I see little independent evidence that Putin wanted Trump specifically to be elected rather than wanting HRC not to be elected. There was no attempt at interfering with the GOP primary in Trump's favor. Any notion that Trump was groomed by Putin in some kind of long game defies reason. Simply put, no one could have had any confidence that Trump would win, ever. ..."
"... So if both of these assumptions hold, what the Democrats are creating, essentially, is a "stab in the back" myth on which they can focus their anger while muddying issues of accountability. Putin, I think it's clear, did not think that Trump had much chance of winning. To say he got "lucky" also doesn't describe the current reality, because this issue will probably taint US-Russian relations far into the future, and in ways no one could have foreseen. ..."
"... But then it's also possible that this will taint American politics into the distant future. The thing about stab-in-the-back myths is that they're emotional, it's extremely difficult for people to a discuss them. much less turn a contested narrative into one based upon mutual agreement. This will be true whether Trump gets impeached or serves two terms. ..."
"... "Europeans have an opinion of Americans as people who hysterically overreact to even the smallest of problems, real, or imagined" ..."
"... And what did exactly Putin did? Told everyone what they already knew about Hillary Clinton? American politics is all about negative ads and made up stuff about other candidates, how exactly was it news to anyone that Hillary Clinton was plotting to bring down Bernie Sanders? Did you guys never have an election before? ..."
"... Are you saying Putin finances Antifa? Because so far they have been the biggest force behind making Trump and Alt-Right look good. That would not be impossible, some corporations did that with environmental groups and they highlight targets for them that were either competitors or themselves but to paint those corporations as victims of unreasonable radicals (hence drowning any constructive criticism). ..."
"... His brilliant placement of several thousand Russian operatives in MI, WI and PA, who were able to bribe a significant number of voters to tip the electoral scale in Trump's favor, was simply brilliant. ..."
"... While this guy isn't saying Trump is right, in as nice a way possible he is saying the NeoCon/NeoLibs are as much to blame and the anti-Russian hysteria is overblown, out of control and incredibly short-sighted. ..."
"... I don't think the Russian interference amounted to a hill of beans in this election. If you think it did, you are delusional. Do you really think some person in the Midwest changed their vote because of what was in the Podesta emails? You're an idiot if you think that. ..."
"... And let's not forget our own interference. ..."
"... So why should Russia trust a country that reneged on its promises and expanded its way to Russia's border? ..."
Stephen F. Cohen has long been one of the leading scholars of Russia and the Soviet Union. He
wrote a biography of the Bolshevik revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin and is a contributing editor at
the Nation, which his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, edits and publishes. In recent years, Cohen has
emerged as a more ideologically dexterous figure, ripping those he thinks are pursuing a "new Cold
War" with Russia and calling for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to form
"an alliance against international terrorism." Cohen has gone so far as to describe the investigations
into the Trump campaign and Russia "the No. 1 threat to the United States today."
... ... ...
I heard you recently on Fox News. You said that the "assault" on President Trump "was the
No. 1 threat to the United States today." What did you mean by that?
Threat. OK. Threat.
That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to
act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance,
but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only.
Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever.
Wait, which charges are we talking about?
That he is somehow in the thrall or
complicity or control, under the influence of the Kremlin.
I think it would help if he would admit what his own intelligence agencies are telling him,
that Russia played some role in
No, I don't accept that. I don't accept that at all,
not for one minute.
People in the Trump administration admit this too.
Well they're not the brightest
lights.
And the president is?
No. You didn't ask me that. You asked me, you said, some
of the president's people. You're referring to that intel report of January, correct? The one that
was produced that said Putin directed the attack on the DNC?
I was referring to that and many news accounts that Russia was behind the hacking, yes.
The news accounts are of no value to us. I mean you and I both know ...
No value? None?
No. No value. Not on face value. Just because the New York
Times says that I don't know, Carter Page or [Paul] Manafort or [Michael] Flynn did something
wrong, I don't accept that. I need to see the evidence.
So then how do you know what's going on in, say, Ukraine? You're not reading "news accounts"
of it?
I read on the internet mainly. I can't read Ukrainian very well, but most of the
sources coming out of Ukraine are in Russian anyway.
So that media's OK, but the New York Times isn't?
No. It absolutely is
not OK. No, no, no, no, no, no.
OK, let's just go back to what you were saying about Trump being hamstrung.
You
need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's
in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys
must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various
fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria.
So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand,
right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled
in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example.
Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent
of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only
way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to
nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise
advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this
assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national
security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe.
To use your Kennedy example, there
was no evidence that Kennedy was an agent of either the Vatican or the Kremlin-
No, but Isaac you're not old enough to remember, but during the campaign, because he was the first
Catholic, they all went on about he's an agent of the Vatican.
I know that. I'm old enough
to have read "news accounts" of it. Anyway, there was a hacking of the DNC and-
Wait actually no, Isaac stop. Stop. Now, I mean we don't know that for a fact.
That there
was a hacking of the DNC?
Yeah we do not know that for a fact.
What do we think happened?
Well ...
So you're really going to argue with me that the DNC wasn't hacked?
I'm saying I don't know that to be the case.
OK.
I will refer you to an alternative report and you can decide yourself.
Can we agree on
this much at least: that Trump said there was a hack, refused to say who he thought did it, encouraged
the hackers to keep doing it, at the same time that he was getting intelligence reports that it was
the Russians, and that he continued to talk very positively about Putin after he was told this?
You've given me too many facts to process, but if Trump said he knew it was a hack, he was not fully
informed. We just don't know it for a fact, Isaac.
So we don't have any forensic evidence that
there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians,
and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden,
just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know,
you don't go to war.
Let me try another tactic.
It's not me making this stuff up. It's not my opinion.
It's just out there. I read it, and I think it's credible.
Why do you think Trump, who has essentially, as far as I can tell, no clue about what's going
on anywhere and can't keep his mind on some issue for 10 minutes, has had in his head consistently
time and again that we must make peace with Putin, we must come together with Putin, Putin's a good
guy? What do you make of that?
Well you have given me a kind of primitive version of what
Trump said. First of all, I don't share the view that Trump's an idiot. Trump's a clever, cunning,
smart man, or he wouldn't have become Donald Trump. Whether that's applicable to the presidency is
a different question, but to treat him as a buffoon and an idiot is just silly.
On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was
that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone
of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries,
so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great
if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also
said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There
is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is
also correct.
You say there's no evidence Putin was a killer. Don't you think if Russia
had a more robust free press and was more of a liberal democracy, evidence might actually emerge?
There's no evidence. I know there are allegations, but I have looked into the three or four most
famous cases. I can't look at them all because there's about 30 now, some of them withdrawn.
So you're saying these Putin enemies who keep turning up dead in Moscow, and then those deaths
are not properly investigated, there's no evidence that Putin was behind them? That's your argument?
Not behind, that's correct. He was not behind. He didn't order the killings, yes.
We know
that because there's been a fair investigation and there's a free press to report on that? That's
what you are saying?
I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko
poisoning in London, find no evidence
that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably"
approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium.
I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in
Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very
close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta. That's the newspaper that employed Anna
Politkovskaya and several other journalists that were assassinated.
Who killed her?
I mean, I don't know who killed her. They've arrested the gunman, but they never get to the contract-giver.
It almost certainly came out of Chechnya, almost certainly.
And who runs Chechnya?
You're headed now into a complicated turf.
You know who runs Chechnya, and you know who
his patron is.
Let me put it to you like this: On the chart of federal authority, Ramzan Kadyrov runs Chechnya,
and Putin could remove him.
OK, well, there you go.
No, that's the beginning of the discussion. What would happen in Chechnya if Putin removed Kadyrov?
He either leaves Kadyrov in power and tries to rein him in, or the Russian army tries again to occupy
Chechnya, which was a catastrophe two times under Yeltsin. You can't do it. What choice does Putin
have at the moment?
Didn't Putin speak disparagingly after Anna's death and say she had
"minimal influence"?
Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature
on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's
asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that
might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't
remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She
had no influence in Russia. What he said was about 95 percent true. Very few people except the
inner political class knew who Anna Politkovskaya was, just like the great majority of Americans
don't know who Stephen Cohen and Isaac Chotiner are. We are known to the people who care about the
things we do.
What he was saying was, when people said, Why did you kill her? He said,
Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? He shouldn't have said it, I guess. He
should have said, You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious.
She was not an influential force in Russia. That would have been better but he just, he's a
blunt sort of guy. He said what he said.
Let's turn to Putin and America. Why do you think we have entered a new Cold War?
My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case
in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them
as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the
three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on
Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's
border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are
flying over the same airspace.
And there is the utter demonization of Putin in this country. It is just beyond anything that the
American political elite ever said about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and the rest. If you demonize the
other side, it makes negotiating harder.
You just said that Ukraine is a civil war. What
was the Russian annexation of Crimea?
There's a long history, but it is a civil war in the sense that Ukraine is a country.
We
agree on that.
And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're
talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part
tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years.
This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The
events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around
Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to
Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have
had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of
defeat.
Gallup did a
poll afterward that 80-some percent of Crimeans wanted to be reunited with Russia.
You're explaining the way Putin and his advisers were thinking, which I agree is important
context, but that doesn't give you the right to invade a sovereign country regardless of what a Gallup
poll may say.
Isaac, come on. Great powers preach international law, and they do what
they think they must.
If a province in any country votes for independence certainly the Crimeans did. There's just no
question that that was a legitimate referendum. People get a little confused about what the choice
was.
But this referendum was after the Russians had gone in.
No, no, no. Well ... wait, wait, wait, wait. Russia was already there by treaty. There were approximately
23,000 Russian soldiers at the naval base in Crimea, at Sevastopol. It was an invasion only in the
sense that they left the base on Crimea.
[The idea of Crimea being part of Russia] was alive in
Russia for years and years. Putin was never interested in it. ... That was a sleeping dog, which
should not have been awakened, but the events of 2014 awakened it. Once that happened, it was close
to inevitable that Russia would proceed with the annexation of Crimea, which was a part of Russia
for 300 years.
What's now Pakistan was part of India for a long time. That doesn't mean India can go in
and take Lahore tomorrow.
You know if we follow your logic, we're going to end up in Texas.
We got to stay in modern history where leaders have a memory.
You and I are going to end up in Texas?
Well, you know what I mean. Texas wasn't
always ours. The point is how far back in history do we go?
That's my point. Anyway, what did you mean when you said leakers here had become a fourth
branch of government, and one intent on undermining Trump?
When I was asked what's driving
the leaking, because you would agree that virtually every day almost there's a new news story that's
based on a leak. You have to go back to when it began, which was the summer of 2016. The Clinton
campaign was deeply involved. You know the story of this dossier right?
Yes.
The one BuzzFeed published?
I do.
It's the one that has urinating in the Ritz-Carlton hotel.*
I was trying to get you to keep going without saying that, but there you go.
Well,
take it out. But there's a serious point here. CNN, where they broadcast 1,000 hours about this dossier
as though it's authentic, says it won't repeat that part because it's too salacious. No, the reason
is if you broadcast that part, people would realize the whole thing is bullshit.
I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent
at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to
combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution
in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to
Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev
for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what
I want. This is probably what's not possible.
Steve, I really appreciate you taking the
time to talk with me. I hope when this is printed that you will believe it is real news and not fake
news.
No, no, no. Let me make a distinction. Opinion, what you and I think, is real news. It's our news.
It's what we think. But when I read in the newspaper that Carter Page was somehow a Russian agent,
I had plenty of reasons to know that that is really a super bogus report.
"... The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences. ..."
"... Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid. ..."
The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing
how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences.
Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream
media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in
for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of
nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid.
@German_reader
They robotically follow the party propaganda line like nihilist fascist lemmings almost like
those following the prevailing view during the tausendjaehrige.
Breathtaking how WITHIN DAYS after November 8, 2016 all the former Russia-loving Left-Totalitarians
did a smooth 180 and now spout anti-Russian rhetoric that would have seemed overwrought to Cold
Warriors back in the 1950s.
It is easy for them. Till June 22, 1941 all communist in America were isolationists and supported
America First, Charles Lindbergh. They were writing pacifist pamphlets and composed anti-war songs,
etc. And within one day they switched 180. Took them some effort to cover up traces of their isolationist
and pacifist episode.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-when-communism-inspired-americans/#comment-1855425
"Professor Zinn, in May of 1941 your friend, Pete Seeger, produced an album called Songs for
John Doe which was a collection of blue collar songs that included one called The Ballad of
October 16th. [At the time, Pete Seeger had formed his first commercial band called the Almanac
Singers.] That song demonstrated yours and Pete's pacifist philosophy by excoriating Franklin
and Eleanor Roosevelt for urging United States entry into World War II to fight Hitler. Shortly
after the album's release, you and Pete were desperately trying to retrieve all the copies
to take them out of circulation. Exactly what happened between May and June of 1941 to turn
you from devoted anti-war activists into sabre-rattling patriots, resulting in your enlisting
in the Army Air Force as a bombardier?"
@Eagle
Eye The Clintonistas and Berniacs have shamelessly united to attack Trump, cynically using
the fakest of fake news. This weekend they're marching "for Truth." If that were true, why aren't
they marching to investigate Hillary and who killed Seth Rich?
But no. On June 3 they're out to get Trump. "Demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election
and ties to Donald Trump, his administration and his associates." https://www.marchfortruth.info/
Meanwhile, barely a peep about illegal, unconstitutional attacks on Syria, or huge sale of
arms to Saudis that will likely end up with terrorists. A better investigation would be Who Killed
Seth Rich. Ask for one here:
On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his
house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery
but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.
Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth
Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering
this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.
The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time
for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia
- particularly Russia and China - as well as attacks in the US and South America.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used
a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's
not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!
Is it just me, or is this an exceptionally awful interview?
Whether you agree with Cohen or not (IMHO he certainly says some silly things there), the interviewer
is demagogical and biased in the extreme. I suppose that's sort of the norm for them?
By the way, is there any evidence of 1) Putin ordering someone killed or 2) The Collusion out
there yet? If read uncritically, the interview gives the impression that of course there is, all
those smart and good people say so. If read critically one notices that if there's any evidence
of anything, it's never mentioned. But if only Russia had a more liberal media environment, then
surely
Stephen F. Cohen is one of the few honest and patriotic Jews living in America who's capably
of telling the unvarnished truth. I regularly seek out his writings for an objective appraisal
of U.S. – Russia relations.
Unfortunately, there are ten Victoria Nuland's, William Kristol's and Chuck U. Schumer's to
every one Stephen F. Cohen.
Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory
expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.
May 29, 2017 " Information
Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism.
The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation
founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial
rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of
the US since its birth as a free nation.
Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans.
Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US
governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the
destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.
In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to
adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The
US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist
foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind
a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.
Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of
US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power
of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction
from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of
US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.
Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers
itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world
over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.
"The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving
the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted
in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.
So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny
& neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up
against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the
path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?
What is Gaslighting?
The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight.
Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme
anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic,
reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies
in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture
or interrogation.
Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual
information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate.
This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing
them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their
abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.
Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim.
It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious
over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be
overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.
" Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete
control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~
Alex Myles
Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One
The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser,
a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating
propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations
and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim
will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality
which is in fact that of the abuser.
Stage Two
The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from
their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their
opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled
a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw
from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.
This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by
psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds
the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via
regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue
the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to
gain and maintain control.
Stage Three
The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim
into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately
exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant.
This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant
apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and
the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.
Exceptionalism or Narcissism?
We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .
The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the
ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after
being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity,
fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes
the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are
labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and
ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.
Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming,
the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who
threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality
& civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.
Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a
"legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for
imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing
of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom
and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement
or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".
The NGO Complex Deployment
Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and
ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign
nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave
their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage
their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because
they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't
realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist
financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to
perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance
will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.
In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that
the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential
civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily
supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and
mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade
of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of
sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.
The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because
their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now
the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their
lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US
has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They
have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination
which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.
In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global
executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US
is inflicting upon the people of this world.
Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation
for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes
being committed in "their name".
This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is
testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.
" My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the
truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers
like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed
some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood
on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been
told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering
of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably
can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is
anything?"
She deserves an answer
***
Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of
her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer
and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement,
and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog
The Wall Will Fall .
A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
Notable quotes:
"... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
"... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
"... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
"... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
"... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
"... dezinformatsiya ..."
"... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
"... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
"... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
"... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
"... actual conspiracy. ..."
"... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
"... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
"... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
President Donald Trump is
about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal.
Bernie Sanders
and Sean
Hannity are Russian agents. The
Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using
Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a
traitor for
refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was
a secret Russian
agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.
These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions
as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart
and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between
Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump
will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed
to confirm.
Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian
and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her
283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch
is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler (
226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer
Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers
).
There's also a handful of websites, like
Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly
exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell
funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's
70,000 Facebook fans.
Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping
into the mainstream discourse. In March,
the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they
should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two
months prior to that, Mensch had penned a
lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims
to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit
Hillary Clinton.
Last Thursday,
Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand
jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were
Mensch and Palmer:
Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too
cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.
"There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White
House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't
exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump
in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."
Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded
speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole
of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.
The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation
into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless
hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of
gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's
election.
"One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize
- and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor
at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern
being repeated."
Anatomy of a conspiracy theory
The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job"
or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian
influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything
that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump
administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.
There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've
written about them personally
over and
over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian
hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible
and
somewhat supported by the available evidence .
The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.
Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one
legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic
between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks (
before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January,
she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's
exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.
Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship
"Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to
Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American
policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an
April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian
government in hacking the election."
Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed
that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against
"the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.
She's also suggested that
Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the
news:
I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting
not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker
, working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who
hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement
officials.
And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:
Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she
refused and called me a
"dickhead."
But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas
on Twitter.
One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned
in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent
a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the
time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared"
(the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter
since 2013
).
"Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the
Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me.
"That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's
disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."
Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on
Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his
speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya
(disinformation), or Chekist
, a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's
Russia.
This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its
members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their
enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies
of being Chekists.
Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims
to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information
into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge
what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that
are on the way.
These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump
is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.
These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information
circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter
search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many
of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also
reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper
Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account
Counterchekist
, and financial analyst
Eric Garland
(best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)
Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to
Quantcast ,
a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more
than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook,
according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that
Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.
This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.
These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of
power
To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars:
Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three
of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form
political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing
from the Russiasphere.
"I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the
left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence
in the White House," Reifler says.
The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in
America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership
in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.
"Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs,
especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics,
that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false
information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."
In
one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms
of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms
of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.
The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation
between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question,
just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control
didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical
reasoning skills.
"[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't
that many people who are willing to do that."
In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math
problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and
the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their
political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories.
You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing
something evil behind the scenes.
The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So
because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of
white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism
and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs
and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald
J. Trump.
There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the
Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a
"trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for
good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.
We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies
may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know
the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want
someone to fill in the blanks for them.
"Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're
among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks
like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish
claims."
This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual
penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled
liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits
the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these
ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.
Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying
this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media
outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.
But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to,
is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.
For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC
chair Donna
Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":
A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that
the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:
Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a
Palmer Report
story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price
tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the
same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to
BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.
"Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended
disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story
seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its
accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."
What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators
being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary
people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest
in factual accuracy.
This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again
in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes
a core and important part of what Democrats believe.
"Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about
Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other
affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."
That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about
Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic
elites to correct it.
Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against
this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous,
then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the
Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center
of the political conversation.
"Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this
kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on
the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."
So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed
up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the
people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer
to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
Notable quotes:
"... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
"... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
"... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown,
even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel
Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had
to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down
for an interview with
French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and
Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."
"Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid
warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today?
Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle
East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."
Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon,
John McCain said that
Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare
yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no
prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."
"Hacking" Clinton And the DNC
Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration
taking place in the background, Putin
once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election
as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong
denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded
disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims
of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve
their standing ."
"They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their
policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he
continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier
said than done, because half a year after the election,
Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin
said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because
the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted,"
is precisely what
even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once
again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...
In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion
and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's
hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of
the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling
leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs
Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous
dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow
as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't
need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change.
You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy
in question is the so-called "deep state."
Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added
that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented
something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything
else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during
a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could
be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs
400 pounds."
Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons
Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons
in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he
agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's
forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered
the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He
added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no
proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that
that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."
"Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron
shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international
community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons
impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.
On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders
Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security,
Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my
attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with
Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?"
Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal
to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US
is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.
But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president
added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and
calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an
idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and
US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security
stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history,
it is not a movie."
junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM
Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe
Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again,
her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.
GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes
in a year.
Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM
Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?
rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM
Iran.
GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM
Me and you, the basket of deplorables.
Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM
I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:
Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The
Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution
"DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not
involved in vote tallying."
"Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful
that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM
It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming
the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had
started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly)
identified
Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the
soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a
moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted
on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.
Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted
for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America,
they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.
But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing
to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished
morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.
"... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
"... intelligence sources ..."
"... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
"... four years earlier ..."
"... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be
very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.
In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate
in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't
much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them
as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence
assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret),
probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other
words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important
part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many
rewrites produced a consensus opinion.
A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy,
or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So:
question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence
is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to
the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the
assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of
words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence
assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin.
All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look
like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that
don't look like the real thing.
Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you
don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and
you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for
example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys
to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and
how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few
certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.
So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand,
has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of
itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely
easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create
the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films
of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day).
It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake.
There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social
media.
An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.
So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social
media "evidence"?
I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when
Marie Harf, the then US State
Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the
Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed
that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing
up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.
There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were
becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either
not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were
were then modified to please the Boss.
If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion
that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence
professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants
to hear.
We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media
and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we
seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a
modified hangout and very far from convincing .
This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the
DNI report of 6 January
2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier
about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the
2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election
chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably
to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.
In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure
that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very
confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the
Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". (
See 10:30
). Jeffrey Carr: "
Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange:
not a state actor. Even
those
who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the
NSA
can mimic Russians or anyone else .
In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that
the responders
didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media
machine wound up its sirens. The
intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting"
and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have
to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow
trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart
by
Theodore Postol .
So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having
their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else
that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like
hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.
Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).
Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the
MH-17 report.
DHS "does not provide any warranties".
The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".
Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.
"Pro-opposition social media reports".
There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed,
of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little
such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.
In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:
The normal process of producing intelligence assessments was not observed in the above cases;
"Intelligence assessments" were fabricated relying on social media (one can only assume because
there was nothing else);
They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
Notable quotes:
"... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
"... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
"... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect
Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes
office.
Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence
agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."
Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started
when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".
People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have
become a grave American national security threat."
"... Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? ..."
"... "They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!" ..."
"... "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the Democratic computers is a national security agency ..."
Professor Stephen Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election' March 31, 2017
chat 176 comments
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton, spoke Thursday evening with
Fox News' Tucker Carlson about the
latest shoes to drop in the investigations into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.
The Wall
Street Journal reported late Thursday that Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, has told the FBI
and congressional investigators that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution -- not
a particularly good sign for the Trump White House.
Cohen, one of the country's foremostexperts on Russia, has been arguing for months that the anti-Russia hysteria in Washington,
D.C., is becoming a
"grave national security threat."
Carlson began the discussion by bringing up what he sees as the core issue-- the allegations that the Russian government "hacked
our election" by breaking into email accounts at the DNC and the Clinton campaign office.
"Everyone assumes this is true," he said. "We're all operating under the assumption that it's true. Do we know it's true?"
"No," Cohen answered flatly. "And if you listen to the hearings at the Senate today, repeatedly it was said -- particularly by
Senator Warner, the Democratic co-chair of the proceedings -- that Russia had hijacked our democracy. What he means is that, the
Russians, at Putin's direction, had gone into the Democratic National Committee's emails, which were embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton,
given them to Wikileaks, Wikileaks then released them to damage Mrs. Clinton and put Trump in the White House."
He noted, "This is a very dramatic narrative and they're saying in Washington that this was an act of war.... So whether or not
it's true is existential. Are we at war?"
After studying Russian leadership for 40 years, focusing on Putin in particular, Cohen said it was hard for him believe that the
Russian president would have done such a thing.
"I could find not one piece of factual evidence," he said. "The only evidence ever presented was a study hired by the Clintons
-- the DNC -- to do an examination of their computers.They
[Crowdstrike] concluded the Russians did it. Their report
has fallen apart." He
added, " Why didn't the FBI do their own investigation? "
Tucker pointed out that even Republicans say that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies (including Coast Guard Intelligence!) have
concluded that Russian intelligence was behind this.
"They say that, but it's bogus," Cohen argued. "When Clapper, the director of national intelligence, signed that report in
January, technically he represents all seventeen. I'll bet you a dime to a nickel you couldn't get a guest on, unprepared, who could
name ten of them. This figure -- seventeen -- is bogus!"
The professor made one more critical point: "The one agency that could conceivably have done a forensic examination on the
Democratic computers is a national security agency ," he said.
He continued: "When they admit that they have no evidence, they fall back on something else which I think is very important. They
say Putin directed Russian propaganda at us and helped elect Trump. I don't know about you, Tucker, but I find that insulting --
because the premise they're putting out ... at this hearing is that the American people are zombies. ... It's the premise of democracy
that we're democratic citizens," he said. "That we have a B.S. detector in us and we know how to use it."
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Maybe not, but let's not forget that there IS evidence that the Obama administration apparently employed police-state
tactics to spy on their political rivals during the election, and to widely disseminate the information they collected in hope
that it would be illegally leaked in order to undermine the Trump administration.
Remember, the only felony we have clear proof of is the leak of Flynn's surveillance data to the press.
Time to get focused on where the crimes are, and stop falling for the progressive's shell game.
RedDog
ValVeggie •
2 months ago Now what do we have here....
WikiLeaks Reveals "Marble": Proof CIA Disguises Their Hacks As Russian, Chinese, Arabic...
"... On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass. ..."
"... Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence. ..."
Following Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte's alleged assault of a reporter, some in the mainstream media
are trying to blame the incident on President Trump. CNN host Don Lemon argued that Trump has culpability because he's said "very
horrible things" about reporters and suggested that they are the enemy of the American people. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said that
Trump has helped whip up "hostility" toward the press, while Joe Scarborough said a "straight line" can be drawn between Trump's
anti-media rhetoric and the Gianforte incident.
On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're
largely giving Democrats a pass.
"Let's discuss Tom Perez and his cussing crusade that he's been giving at so many different fundraisers.
Let's talk for a
moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and
'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the
right of fomenting violence.
During his first press conference since the election, Donald Trump got into a back-and-forth exchange
with CNN reporter Jim Acosta over the news organization's coverage of the unverified report -- first
posted on BuzzFeed -- claiming Trump's deep ties with Russia.
While answering a question relating to his earlier tweet asking "Are we living in Nazi Germany,"
Trump specifically called out BuzzFeed as a "failing pile of garbage" and CNN for building up
the story after BuzzFeed first released it.
When Trump finished his response, Acosta could be overheard trying to ask a question. "Since you're
attacking us can you give us a question? Since you are attacking our news organization can you give
us a chance?" Acosta said.
"Not you, your organization is terrible," Trump responded, telling Acosta to be quiet. "She's
asking a question, don't be rude."
Acosta however kept trying to ask his question, until Trump ended the exchange by declaring CNN
to be "fake news." "No, I'm not going to give you a question. You are fake news!" he said. "Mr. President-elect
that's not appropriate," Acosta said before allowing the next reporter to ask her question.
Government
lies are common when seducing a population to support a war,
but the Russian
"hacking" claims are unusual
in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while
the
"fact" is just assumed,
When the U.S. public was told that Spain had blown up theMaine,or Vietnam had
returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre,
the claims were straightforward and disprovable.
Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to
lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly
happened.
No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken
as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened.
And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused
its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done
business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.
All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined
the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
U.S. corporate media
reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to
try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the
case.
There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of
exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually
referring, as if to established fact to the...
"Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" (
Yahoo
).
"Russian attempts to disrupt the election" (
New
York Times
).
"Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" (
ABC
).
"Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" (
The
Intercept
).
"a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's
election-meddling" (
Time
).
"Russian interference in the US election" (
CNN
).
"Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the
New
York Times
, but what is "election hacking"?
Its definition seems to vary
widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?
The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a
factual event in
Wikipedia
,
not as an allegation or a theory.
But the factual nature of it is not so much
asserted as brushed aside.
Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in
which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence,"
testified that "the
fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the
fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American
people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something
that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to
act to prevent further instances of that."
He provided no evidence.
Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into
Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more
about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016
election." (
March
for Truth
.)
Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is
steadily
rising
in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain
credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it
was a fact.
Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the
opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their
investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles
that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White
House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian
businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on
Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the
photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and
discussed
. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic
National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than
there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate
believers.
Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad
acceptance, and status as something to be
constantly referred to as though
already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add
nothing to the central claim
. This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as
any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.
This dude lost all credibility when he ended the article with "...
racist right". Talk about no evidence. We live in an upside down
world where protecting one's borders is considered racist, but
blaming whitey for all the ills of the world is perfectly fine.
Obama, and the Left, with their knee-jerk association of anyone who
disagrees with them, are the true racists. Finding collective
racism, sexism, etc so easily only proves your own mind-numbing
intollerance and rabid sickness of hate and discrimination. Hillary
Clinton proved it in spades at her Wellesly College Comencecunt
speach. The vitriol outdoes Trump on his worst night.
A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted
and discussed
. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a
Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked
Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both
claims have passionate believers.
Well actually there is evidence that Seth
Richs was the DEM leak and not the Russians.
"A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively
noted and discussed
."
Who needs facts?
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels, Minister of
Propaganda, Nazi Germany 1933-45.
Notice how no one is apparently really investigating if Assad "gassed his own
people." This allegation is a big deal. Did the NYT assign five of its best
international reporters to investigating the facts? Is the UN investigating? Are
"intelligence" officers who dissent from the official meme being contacted?
That is, at some point, the truth doesn't matter. Nor does any "search for the
truth" seem to take place or get any publicity.
In fact the US blocked a Russian demand that an investigation be conducted by a
neutral 3rd party. Anyone that really follows this story knows it wasn't Assad.
The lies aren't even disguised any longer. The only people they are trying to
convinceare the people who only watch CNN or MSNBC but those dolts are
convinced that Hillary won the election but Russia changed the ballots so there
is really no trying to reason with idiots like that.
The big question is, does Trump know the Assad gassing meme is bullshit, or
is he really not that well-informed. I hope and pray he is playing 5-D chess
and is just pretending in order to buy himself enough time to drain the
swamp in the long run.
yeah the media in the USA is exposing itself to everyone even the most brain dead
lib has got to be questioning what the heck is going on with this Russian garbage,
the sheer vapid intensity is such it borders on supernatural
Russian Hacking = Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction = Syrian Chemical Weapons =
Muslins with Box Cutters = Gulf of Tonkin = a Miracle Bullet ... the list is
endless.
The deep state is terrified that
investigating Seth's Murder will open up a huge can of worms! The dishonest
liberal media will have lost credibility forever --
When I watch CNN and other people in the MSM talking about Russia I ask myself,
"what the fuck are these people smoking?" You couldn't make me think the Russians
were in control of Donald Trump even if you jacked me up with LSD and the
strongest blunts from Colorado!
Seriously, to watch news readers on CNN go into
fits of hysteria over Russia is mind numbing.
Can someone Fed Ex a blunt from Colorado? I don't even smoke anymore! FUCK.
The fuckers get fed lines, like movie actors. They are so fucking dumb, they
don't even know it, (that they are dumb.) A fine example of special ops,
brainwashing, probably educated in the finest elite training mills, with no
emphasis on critical thnking skills nor original thoughts whatsoever ..
The dems are breaking rule #7 of their manefesto, Saul Alansky's Rule Book for
radicals.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
We most definitely find the muh Russia charade tiresome. The dems are just too
unimaginative to make up anything new for us. Hollywood too has proved itself to
be out of ideas. Trump is the best amusement possible. You can't possibly guess
what he's going to do or say next. Dems and neo-cons, the globalist elites, are
totally predictable. They have never had such an adversary. It is a glorious show
to behold!
The stench of BS is so strong around Washington DC that I will not go there. Not
even with my HAZMAT respirators that can filter out the aroma of a skunk. Skunks
are no match for the stinking BS that pervades Washington DC.
I believe this is
why you never read stories about "skunk problems" in DC. The skunks have left DC.
What remains in DC is the real stinkers. The people who would have you believe
their utterly made up BS.
They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
Notable quotes:
"... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
"... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
"... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect
Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes
office.
Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence
agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."
Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started
when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".
People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have
become a grave American national security threat."
...we wouldn't be talking about this if Democrats and the media weren't lying every hour of every
day about a nonexistent scandal. This bogus investigation should end forthwith, no matter who is
heading it, because it is based on nothing but innuendo and partisanship. You conduct an
investigation not because you want something to be true but because you have some evidence
suggesting it may be. There is no such evidence here, and they've admitted it.
...
Mimi • 7 days ago
This Russian drum beat is getting tiresome. It is a terrible distraction to what more good and
beneficial things the President is trying to implement. The devil is definitely at work in all
the Democrat's hate-spewing words and deeds. Just look at their faces when they get interviewed
on TV. They don't care about all the infractions Hillary was involved in - all her life, even
dead bodies left in her wake. So they say.
KrrMudgeon • 13 days ago
"Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified"...in other words, perfectly normal
for dems.
concernedcitizen • 13 days ago
I would like someone on the Left to explain exactly how Russia interfered with the election.
The DNC was hacked as was Podesta's emails and the information was given to wikileaks. Julian
Assange himself stated that the information was not provided by Russia nor was it provided by a
state agency. So, where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered with the election???
cam • 14 days ago
To believe that the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Election and possible
involvement of the Trump campaign with Russia is a witch hunt or "fake news" means that the 17
Intelligence Agencies, the Investigative Committees in the House and the Senate and other
investigations are spending their valuable time investigating nothing is absurd. How can Trump
and a few other people be right by claiming this investigation is a hoax and the hundreds of
investigators be wrong!
It has been already proven by 17 Intelligence Agencies that Russia interfered in the Election
and now the investigation is into the next part - the investigation of the Trump campaign and
their possible involvement with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Election.
It is insulting to me and other Americans that Trump considers this "fake news."
There are facts that support these investigations and to pretend that these facts do not exist
is lying!
... Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of
little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin's buffer against another Western
invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in
Washington, of Soviet world domination.
I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles
posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister
Lavrov's continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out
an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate or isolate Russia?
Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington's
intention to accommodate other national interests.
It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:
The budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger
than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon's budget
but also the budgets of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the
location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the
elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from
$1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn't give up and go away because some president
or some part of the electorate want peace. The "Russian Threat" is essential to the power and
profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56
years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
The neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western media's explanation
of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives
believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States
as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the responsibility to assert
the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over
and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you
are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone
else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim
that Hitler made for Germany.
As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate
obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's
government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran
in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.
For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with
Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov's use of diplomacy
to delay the US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to
his last, despite the facts.
Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks
that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are
established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don't understand that Washington
could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of
choice.
The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and US corporations are too dependent on
the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize
these profits by going to war.
By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington's
recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington's move toward war.
The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider
Newsweek's May 26, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: "The Plot Against America:
Inside Putin's Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S."
It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in
America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the
reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US
Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy.
Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes
are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.
Consider Time magazine's cover. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for
the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America's subservience
to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the
bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance.
Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street's recent article on CounterPunch and
the English language Russian website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state
the truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that
role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on earth.
Street writes about "How Russia Became 'Our Adversary' Again." According to Street, Russia became
the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world's population and resources from being
exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin stopped
the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington's exploitation
of the world.
Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner.
He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally
wanted normal relations with Russia, an "orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin's authoritarian
manliness."
Trump's problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute
who intended to worsen the relations.
Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street
and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect
truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President
Trump.
That peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security
budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government , is too much truth for
most writers to state.
Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much
of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.
"... A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win the election. ..."
"... Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn ..."
"... we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.) ..."
"... In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already underway for 10 months) would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president. ..."
"... So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian "meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, ..."
"... It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of Jan. 6. ..."
"... Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of Mr. Comey? ..."
"... President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," ..."
Donald Trump
said he had fired FBI
Director James
Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he
is mostly correct.
A few days before his firing, Mr. Comey reportedly had asked for still more resources to hunt the Russian bear. Pundit piranhas
swarmed to charge Mr. Trump with trying to thwart the investigation into how the Russians supposedly "interfered" to help him win
the election.
But can that commentary bear close scrutiny, or is it the "
phony narrative "
Senate
Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas claims it to be? Mr. Cornyn has quipped that, if impeding the investigation was Mr. Trump's
aim, "This strikes me as a lousy way to do it. All it does is heighten the attention given to the issue."
Truth is, President Trump had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate
actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" -- like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to
precipitate the demise of Trump aide
Michael
Flynn . Mr. Flynn was caught "red-handed," so to speak, talking with Russia's ambassador last December. (In our experience,
finding the culprit for that leak should not be very difficult; we suspect Mr. Comey already knows who was responsible.)
In contrast, Mr. Comey evinced strong determination to chase after ties between Russia and the Trump campaign until the cows
came home. In the meantime, the investigation (already
underway for 10 months)
would itself cast doubt on the legitimacy of Mr. Trump's presidency and put the kibosh on plans to forge a more workable relationship
with Russia -- a win-win for the establishment and the FBI/CIA/NSA "Deep State"; a lose-lose for the president.
So far, it has been all smoke and mirrors with no chargeable offenses and not a scintilla of convincing evidence of Russian
"meddling" in the election. The oft-cited, but evidence-free, CIA/FBI/NSA report of Jan. 6, crafted by "hand-picked" analysts, according
to then-Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper , is of a piece with the "high-confidence," but fraudulent, National Intelligence Estimate 15 years ago about weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq.
But what about "Russia hacking," the centerpiece of accusations of Kremlin "interference" to help Mr.Trump?
On March 31, 2017,
WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing
it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
for example. The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7"
trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts
to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the
expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked.
It is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by
a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Mr. Clapper - the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free memorandum of
Jan. 6.
Mr. Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not
insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose
to rely on the those done by DNC contractor Crowdstrike. Could this be explained by Mr. Comey's fear that FBI technicians not fully
briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? Did this play a role in Mr. Trump's firing of
Mr. Comey?
President Trump has entered into a high-stakes gamble in confronting the Deep State and its media allies over the evidence-free
accusations of his colluding with Russia. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, publicly warned him of the
risk earlier this year. "You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Mr.
Schumer told MSNBC's
Rachel
Maddow on Jan. 3.
If Mr. Trump continues to "take on" the Deep State, he will be fighting uphill, whether he's in the right or not. It is far from
certain he will prevail.
Ray McGovern ([email protected]) was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to
President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. William Binney ([email protected]) worked for
NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created
many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
The public owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to both Mr. McGovern and Mr. Binney, who are substantial individuals with sterling
reputations, for putting themselves forward and informing the public of the crimes that are taking place in DC behind closed doors.
The fact that paid shills and trolls would make the effort to post content free criticisms of this article only serves to underline
the article's importance to a thoughtful reader. The people who sponsor these posters obviously have complete contempt for the
public. However, each day, thanks to articles like this and the idiotic attempts to criticize them, more and more people are becoming
aware of the fraud that is DC.
"... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
"... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
"... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
"... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
"... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
"... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
"... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
"... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
"... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
"... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
"... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
"... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
"... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
"... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
"... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
"... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
"... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
"... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
"... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
"... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
"... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails,
but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?
Why?
Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign
government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?
That's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton
crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top
of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails
which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads
that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to
do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.
We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither
the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is
that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?
And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the
last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?
According to Fox News:
"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home
had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated
within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .
Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich
family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .
"I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen
connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department."
("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)
Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their
political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking
story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins
who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline,
are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins
who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.
WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active
interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction
of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?
I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not
just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being
used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could
actually change the course of history.
Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust
what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked"
by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset
with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray)
appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit
to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .
Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages
about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical
danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian
government.
"The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the
same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting
that information out had legal access to that information
Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services,
NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"
"I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they
are leaks by Americans."
("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news,
but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.
Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and,
so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?
Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In
fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof
of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called
The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a
smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran
journalist Robert Parry summed it up:
"The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further,
the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive
because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert
Parry, Consortium News)
Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking
gun", eh?
If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because
it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was
corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that
served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:
"On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia
deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe
this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one
reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked"
from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts
were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved
by the directors of the three agencies and me."
This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from
just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout
the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through
some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .
A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over
the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no
role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA
and reviewed and approved their conclusions .
The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether
it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency
."
("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)
Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't
it?
Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:
1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?
No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected
the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."
2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?
No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create
consensus.
3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?
Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence.)
4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?
No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This
of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.
5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?
Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."
6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question
their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?
Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:
"I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian
interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions
are under assault internally."
When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)
Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of
the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")
7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?
No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would
'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's
no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:
"12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed
there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:
The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that
the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)
Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes
to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want
to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?
How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?
First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant
and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will
help to put things into perspective:
"Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense
of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal
Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy
grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.
"These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding,
all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,"
the letter states.
Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and
observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen
apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI
Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)
Get the picture?
Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't
trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.
American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify
Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:
"There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July
2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence
gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table",
American Thinker)
Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving
the way for impeachment proceedings?
Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings
in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These
things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.
Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?
Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't
mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole
flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government
in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they
have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer
Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the
CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"
("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)
Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the
claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative
as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet'
our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't
seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely
been limited to the wimps in Europe.
sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a
governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.
imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington
projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.
once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking
for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it
out ability project power.
our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries
like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.
forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and
the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.
watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights
here.
@Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and
retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family
now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.
This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough
influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)
Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and
the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around
to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity
and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes
of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players.
Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical
& economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of
that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there
is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening
is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like
this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.
And then, the gates of hell break open in America.
@Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled
to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.
Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in
this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?
Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.
Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and
volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain
to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the
likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.
Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And
they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.
Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that
there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.
I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person
casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a
vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this
process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.
The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's
Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!
The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over
Clinton.
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away.
We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong
arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on
our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the
Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps
I should have said " won the popular vote count ".
As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.
My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.
I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military
dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland
mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking
version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.
If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia
action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go
along with the official line.
Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.
All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in
"national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global
security".
@Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible
elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped
away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters
strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well
on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.
It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts
to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what
it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the
drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.
It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only
that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.
I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to
remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol
Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly
for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.
"Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."
I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months?
I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in
Washington State is the cause of his delusions?
We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders,
and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.
That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but
my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due
to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan,
as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.
He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational
institutions. None of that in the USA.
As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere
about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike
the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).
He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of
that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time,
and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right
now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout
4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you
will only find in the video game!
December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security
In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing
the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political
ploy.
Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users
Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss
his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."
@Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred
up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly,
Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation
and has never even been to DC.
Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.
Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?
It is Julian, not Julien.
I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that
slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly
extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.
Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some
great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about
the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default
on bail.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states
That's the theory. The reality is more like:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states
or better still:
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that
have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections
@anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without
the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could
safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.
The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...
What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that
I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its
borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will
they do that?
But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot
be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national
cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to
tear the homeland apart.
The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system,
to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.
Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks
were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the
French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern
countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.
At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment,
Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.
@Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...
Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's
death in their probe into Russian election tampering.
I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs
to be done properly.
- Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017
Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something
like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"
Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom
to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.
Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that
u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
Most recently, he tweeted:
Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head??
https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
- Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.
.Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his
testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from
the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his
former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given
"complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their
conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of
the three agencies and me."
Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both
being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover
prior to any investigation taking place.
"... Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president: ..."
"... He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America. ..."
"... He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow. ..."
"... President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship. ..."
"... They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here . ..."
"... In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done. ..."
"... Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, ..."
"... Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA ..."
"... By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again. ..."
"... What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs. ..."
"... In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment ..."
"... For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel. ..."
Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:
He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow.
He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.
President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from
them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American
right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous
"crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.
They hated him
for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties
listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963,
the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here
and
here .
Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme
right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative
movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.
In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the "
Peace Speech ." It was one of the
most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first
time that had ever been done.
In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the
rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since
the end of World War II.
It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against
America's World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security
state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like
powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that
the Cold War - and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia - would last
forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy's predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower,
had called the "military-industrial complex."
Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence
with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.
Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to "national security." After all, don't
forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from
power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro's
outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including
through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader's Patrice Lamumba's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship
that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende's outreach to the Soviets in a
spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende's death.
Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address
about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel
Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into
a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA
were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating
that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened
to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing - reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.
In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other "enemy" of America.
Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to "national security."
Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear
testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA Yes, that's right - they said that
"national security" depended on the U.S. government's continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today - conducting nuclear
tests, both above ground and below ground.
Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment
to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after
winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover
would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.
Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet
Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America's Cold War against them. That was considered to
be a grave threat to "national security" as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on
the Cold War.
By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA
into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also
lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done
at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried
out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis,
when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.
What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all.
As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials
at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly
doing behind their backs.
Kennedy's feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other "enemies" of America?
In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told
his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts
weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.
For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled "
The National Security State and JFK " at the
Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.
"... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside
Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image
shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with
quotes from the article:
1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.
The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic
forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."
2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.
Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold
War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.
3) Russia spies on you.
The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic
or not sympathetic."
4) America is losing the cyberwar.
As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning
to figure out how to fight back.
5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.
American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations
into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence
them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as
bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.
6) Russia has huge troll farms.
Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing
cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering.
Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news
outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.
7) You must trust mainstream media.
Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you
questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook
or Twitter feed.
8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .
Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.
9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.
That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted
from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented
stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.
10) The evidence:
Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's
agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the
ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior
intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.)
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has
said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day
the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm,
RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of
Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept.
16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure
out how many were Russian.
"... "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it." ..."
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class. ..."
A comment from MoA contains an insightful observation
"Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation
the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it."
This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the
Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality
and impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get
into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave
rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western
working class.
They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.
"... If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia
Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and
impoverishment.
If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into
the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to
the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working
class .
They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.
"... Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud. ..."
"... He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. ..."
"... Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries ..."
Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff The Vineyard of the Saker
Question: The traditional definition of war is "war is nothing more than an extension of
state policy by alternate means." We usually understand "alternate means" as military violence and
therefore claim that war always involves military action. Do you think it would be correct to say
that the nature of war has changed in contemporary circumstances, that is, now the term includes
measures for information, economic, political and psychological impact?
Sergey Lavrov: You know, in the West they coined the term 'hybrid war.' As a matter of
fact, this is the concept they seem to be forming based on their experience. Unilateral economic
sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway
when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we
talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets
funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf.
A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present
themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On
several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they
painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian
and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which
he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative
news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud.
He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including
medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. This is just
one example. But anywhere you go, when I just try talking to my Western colleagues, the White Helmets
are exempt from any criticism and seem to have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other tricks
like that. Certainly, in a wider perspective, cyberspace is an area where there is a material possibility
to inflict potentially very serious harm. Cyber forces were created and, apparently, they have some
significance. This is exactly why we need forums where these things can be discussed as a single
package. The military discusses purely military issues, which now extends to cyberwars.
Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that
the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy,
it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come
back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries. It
is very short-sighted to impose unilateral sanctions on a country like Russia, with its huge potential,
human and natural resources. By encouraging dialogue in each of these areas to build a general understanding,
mutually beneficial and generally acceptable approaches, we need a forum where all these issues can
be considered in their relation to each other because they all affect the general status of international
relations. Except for the UN, there is no other framework like this. This is a very topical issue
and we have no doubt that it will be in the centre of very heated and engaging debates for the foreseeable
future.
"... It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM). ..."
"... Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing. ..."
"... The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. ..."
"... The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions. ..."
"... RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. ..."
"... So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia. ..."
"... The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. ..."
It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about
the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over
or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human
welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial
complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political
forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party
line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media
(MSM).
Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be
effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the
assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein
could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of
weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble
swallowing.
Boris Yeltsin, accommodating to U.S. advice and pressure from 1991-2000,
seriously damaged his own people's well-being (Russian GDP fell 50 percent,
between 1991-1998), but, while he was also creating an oligarchic and
authoritarian economic and political structure he was lauded as a great
democrat in the MSM. Yeltsin's election victory in 1996, greatly assisted by
U.S. consultants, advice and money, and otherwise seriously corrupt, was "A
Victory for Russian Democracy" (NYT, ed,, July 4, 1996). His successor,
Vladimir Putin, gradually discarding the Yeltsin-era subservience, became a
steadily increasing menace. His reelection in 2012, although surely less
corrupt than Yeltsin's in 1996, was treated harshly in the media. No
"victory for Russian democracy" here, and the lead NYT article on May 5,
2012 featured "a slap in the face" from OSCE observers, claims of no real
competition, and "thousands of antigovernment protesters gathered in Moscow
square to chant 'Russia without Putin'" (Ellen Barry and Michael Schwartz,
"After Election, Putin Faces Challenges to Legitimacy"). There were no
"challenges to legitimacy" reported in the MSM in Yeltsin's corrupt victory
in 1996, although it was so corrupt that Yeltsin may actually have lost the
election but for a fraudulent count (on February 20, 2012, outgoing Russian
President Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by acknowledging
that Yeltsin might really have lost the 1996 election to Communist Gennadi
Zyuganov).
The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine
crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian
support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and
absorption of Crimea by Russia.
This was all declared to be
"aggression" by the U.S. and its allies and clients, sanctions were imposed
on Russia and the U.S.-NATO buildup on the Russian borders increased.
Tensions mounted further with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines MH-17,
effectively but almost surely falsely, blamed on the "pro-Russian" rebels
and Russia itself (see Robert Parry, "Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17
Report," Consortiumnews.com, September 28, 2016). A further cause of
demonization and anti-Russian hostility resulted from escalated Russian
intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Saddad and against ISIS. The
U.S. and its NATO and local Middle East allies had been committing
aggression against Syria and in de facto alliance with ISIS and Al-Nusrah,
an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Russian intervention turned the tide, the U.S.
(etc) goal of removing Saddad was upset and the tacit U.S. ally, ISIS, was
also severely weakened. Certainly demonic behavior. The next and ongoing
phase of anti-Russian hysteria was based on Russia's purported entry into
the 2016 presidential campaign and on the growing role of the CIA and other
U.S. security services in hysteria-implementation, in close alliance with
the MSM. In the third presidential debate, on October 19, 2016, Clinton
declared that Trump would be a Putin "puppet" as president, and her campaign
placed great emphasis on this. This emphasis increased after the election,
with the help of the media and intelligence services as the Clinton camp
sought to explain the election loss and possibly get the election result
overturned in the courts or electoral college by blaming it on Russia.
The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017
release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on
Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S.
Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the
Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate
propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and
institutions.
RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists
of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We
assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's
chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and
publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect.
"
There is no semblance of proof that there was a planned "campaign" rather
than the expression of opinion and associated news judgments. All the logic
and proofs of a Russian "influence campaign" could be applied with at least
equal force to U.S. media treatment of any Russian election.
As regards their effort to prove that the Russians intervened more
directly in the U.S. electoral process, the authors hedge by saying the
report doesn't provide the "full supporting evidence," but it provides no
supporting evidence-only assertions, assessments, assumptions and guesses.
It states blandly that "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign
in 2015" designed to defeat Clinton, and "to undermine public faith in the
U.S. democratic process," but it provides no evidence whatsoever for any
such order. It also provides no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, Clinton
and Podesta e-mails, or that it gave hacked information to WikiLeaks. Julian
Assange and Craig Murray have repeatedly claimed that these sources were
leaked by local insiders, not hacked by anybody. And veteran intelligence
agency experts William Binney and Ray McGovern also contend that the
WikiLeaks evidence was surely leaked, not hacked ("The Dubious Case on
Russian 'Hacking'," Consortiumnews.com, January 6, 2017). It is of interest
that among the intelligence agencies who signed on to the DNI document, the
one with the greatest reservations-only "moderate confidence"--was the NSA,
which is the agency that would most clearly be in possession of proof of
Russian hacking and transmission to Wiki-Leaks as well as any "orders" from
Putin.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Clinton blamed FBI head James
Comey's reopening and then quickly closing the case on her earlier
unauthorized use of a private email server, as the key factor in her
election loss ("Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Defeat," NYT, November
13, 2016). This suggests that even she and her campaigners didn't consider
the alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks revelations as that important. But
the Russian-Putin connection lived on and even escalated further.
The MSM have given no attention to the politicization of the intelligence
agencies in these cases. The more durable and important case involving
Russia has been damaging to Trump and any peace prospects that his
presidency might have brought. But the FBI-Clinton episode was damaging to
Clinton and benefited Trump's electoral chances. One theory is that the FBI
leadership favored Trump while the CIA favored Clinton. Another theory is
that the intelligence agencies trusted neither candidate, so fatally injured
Clinton and then turned their guns on Trump, with the FBI signing on to the
joint agencies "Assessment" after having finished with Clinton. (Robert
Parry, "A Spy Coup in America?" Consortiumnews.com, December 18, 2016.)
But the CIA's hostility to Trump has been conspicuous, and their brazen
intervention in the election process broke new ground in secret service
politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell had an August 5, 2016 op-ed
in the New York Times entitled "I Ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary
Clinton"; and former CIA boss Michael Hayden had an op-ed in the Washington
Post, just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is
Russia's Useful Fool" (November 3, 2016). These attacks were unrelievedly
insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, though interestingly there is
no mention of the merits or demerits of the candidates domestic policy
programs. It is explicit that Clinton's more pugnacious approach to Syria
and Russia is much preferred to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and
cooperation with Russia.
So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and
even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign
and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release
and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the
incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in
principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows
similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last
acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the
supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press
conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political
point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump
administration's hands in its dealings with Russia.
This was also true of the further scandal with Michael Flynn's call from
the Russian Ambassador, possibly including exchanges about future policy
actions. This was quickly grasped by the outgoing Obama officials and
security personnel, with the FBI interrogating Flynn and with widespread
expressions of horror at Flynn's action, allegedly possibly setting him up
for blackmail. But such pre-inauguration meetings with Russian diplomats
have been a "common practice" according to Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador
to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and Matlock had personally arranged such a
meeting for Carter. Obama's own Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, admitted to
visiting Moscow for talks with officials in 2008 even before the election.
Daniel Lazare makes a good case that the illegality and blackmail threat are
implausible, that the FBI's interrogation of Flynn reeks of entrapment, and
he asks what is wrong with trying to reduce tensions with Russia? "Yet
anti-Trump liberals are trying to convince the public that it's all 'worse
than Watergate'." ("Democrats, Liberals, Catch McCarthyistic Fever,"
Consortiumnews.com, February 17, 2017.)
One of the few positive features of the Trump campaign had been a refusal
to demonize Putin and an indication of a desire to normalize relations with
Russia. Given the growth and power of the military-industrial complex, and
the security agencies, there were powerful vested interests in continued
hostile relations with Russia, manifested in the Assessment and other
security agency overt and covert leaks, and the cooperation of the media (as
in their publication of the CIA election letters).
Paralleling the Assessment's stress on the Russian "influence campaign,"
the MSM became very preoccupied with "fake news," often implicitly or
explicitly tied to Russia. An awkward fact in this context is that the
disclosures of Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails allegedly hacked by Russia
described facts about electoral manipulations on behalf of the Clinton
campaign that might well have affected election results. The focus on the
non-existent Russian hacking intrusion helped divert attention from this
real electoral abuse. Official and MSM fake news helped bury real news.
The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence campaign, that
was and still is a real anti-Russian disinformation campaign, was the
Washington Post's classic by Craig Timberg, "Russian propaganda effort
helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say" (November 24, 2016).
The article features a report by an anonymous author or authors, PropOrNot,
a "group that insists on public anonymity" according to the WP editors. The
group claims to have found 200 websites that wittingly or unwittingly, were
"routine peddlers of Russian propaganda." While smearing these websites, the
"experts" refused to identify themselves allegedly out of fear of being
"targeted by legions of skilled hackers."
As Matt Taibbi says,"You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you
won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike." ("The 'Washington Post's
'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting," RollingStone.com, November
28, 2016.) But the WP welcomed and featured this smear job, which might well
be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare (and they are well
funded and heavily into the propaganda business).
The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the
Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump.
They
easily confuse fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as
in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, "Europe Combats a New Foe of Political
Stability: Fake News," February 20, 2017; analyzed, in Robert Parry, "NYT's
Fake News about Fake News," Consortium news.com, February 22, 2017. But what
is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular
columnists accept the CIA's Assessment of the Russian hacking-transmission
to WikiLeaks, the dreadfulness of the Flynn case, the possibility or
likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a
congressional and "non-partisan" investigation of these claims. This
swallowing of a new party line has extended widely in the liberal media
(e.g., Robert Reich, Ryan Lizza, Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow, the AlterNet
website, etc.).
On December 23, 2016 President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy
"Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act," which will supposedly allow
this country to more effectively combat foreign (Russian, Chinese)
propaganda and disinformation. It will encourage more government
counter-propaganda efforts and provide funding to non-government entities
that will help counter propaganda.
It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and
propaganda, and may even be said to be a follow-on to the listing of 200
knowing or "useful tools" of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. Perhaps
PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list of 200.
Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, which was
signed into law on a Friday, perhaps paralyzed by their fears of
Russian-based fake news and propaganda. But they may wake up, even if
belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their own
notions of fake news and propaganda.
Z
Edward S. Herman is an author, economist, and media analyst with a
specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy.
"... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'.
Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since
Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100
billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion
if we left the euro.
100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi.
His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible.
He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of
the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.
Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite
easy to leave the euro.
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul
Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
@Agent76
Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism
Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a
columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder
of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street
Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified
before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic
policy.
If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a
truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia
and the mastermind of all
EVIL
, Putin.
@joe webb
one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two
sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate
X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels,
psychology, etc.
Failure of intelligence.
There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)
@Agent76
Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video
Compilation
Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic,
ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US
support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.
@Kiza
No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the
US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both
the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the
propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym
for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
Idiocracy it truly is.
As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew
Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The
Guardian of the Lies and so on.
This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP.
Jews run the media and shape the Narrative.
So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'.
So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed.
And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what
Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.
Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that
marriage = two men buggering one another.
This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better
ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.
"Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not
always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"
Also,
You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of
seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the
place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for
people's hatred and fear.
Not at all.
After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of
diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian
started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013).
Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered
unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and
Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends"
clownshow in 2015.
(The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good
to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of
this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna
have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s
didn't get much traction anymore.)
@ThereisaGod
It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory
and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is
tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.
@Anon
single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a
coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working
class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White
Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its
One World of Consumers.
Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal
Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?
In truth, Jews dominate.
For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the
narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no
interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites
'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and
vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest
in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.
If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is
a Jewish thing.
If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE
to get at Trump.
Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template
and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all
anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key
Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set
the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag
along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are
parrots with the Parrotive.
Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and
finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is
happening.
Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want
to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice
but to go along.
Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could
Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.
Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't
give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him.
Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.
So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have
1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most
Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than
Palestinians/Muslims do.
This is a
Jew Coup
because Jews are the single-most powerful
element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians),
FED, Wall Street, and etc.
Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell
Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern
Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.
@Ace
We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional
America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants,
American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war),
Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally
Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing
National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the
Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage,
diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized
medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural
born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket
scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil,
Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade,
immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americanswon't do, climate
change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building,
the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of
segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in
sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations,
BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the
"Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage
commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials,
POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship,
McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the
Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller
the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal,
the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St.
Hillary the Incorrupt.
Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis. And
Hindu software engineers.
I'm out of ideas now at which point one must say, "And I could go on and
on."
@El Dato
This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't
Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and
no-one cares)
@Agent76
Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25,
2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W.
Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier
Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German
reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch"
eastwards towards Russia.
@huswa
That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on
in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if
you have them?
I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of
the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not
think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden"
wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They
wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local
economies t Of course, they did a lot of good
"... The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. ..."
"... The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. ..."
"... Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything ..."
So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially
Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that
those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has
the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling
classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner.
The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred
years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward
right on schedule.
The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain
surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece
is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.
Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable"
papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning
economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist
agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant
number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow
and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks
in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are)
that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with,
or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control
the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion.
Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the
White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions
like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal
healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.
"... So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) ..."
"... They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything. ..."
"... whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia. ..."
"... Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this? ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history. ..."
"... In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. ..."
So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into "
The Age of Darkness " and the "
racially Orwellian "
Trumpian
Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard
of the
Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy
not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business
in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they
have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the
Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other
non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine
in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.
Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at
"respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M.
Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely
ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won
the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus
(i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the
hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough.
They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global
campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair
elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in
some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain,
the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman
Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive
activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of
everything.
If you think I'm being hyperbolic, check out
#MarchforTruth
on Twitter, or
its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page , which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank,
but which seems to be in deadly earnest about "restoring faith in American government," uncovering
Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and reversing his "subversion of the will of the people." The plan
is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets
"demanding answers" from well, I'm not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional
committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators
that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have
convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the
ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working
for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing
to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.
Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he'd
be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and
his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact
Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven't
gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the "Comey-firing" brouhaha broke,
which
seems to have brought Blow back to the fold , albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting
readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the
weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.
Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared
to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward (
as they did in the recent French election , and
as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and
as
The Guardian
appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should
be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage
of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals
in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports
of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists,"
and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this?
All joking aside,
as I've
written about previously , what we're dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the
Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that
in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It's actually
just a slight variation on the one it's been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable,
academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I'm trying to keep things simple these days so let's
call it The Normals versus The Extremists , (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists
being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition
to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left,
right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters). Now, as any professional storyteller
will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you're trying to suck people into
is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful
and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do - the story was Democracy versus the Commies
, traditional "good versus evil"-type stuff.
Once the U.S.S.R.
collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e.,
the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy
with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring
global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an "enemy." This
approach, as you'll recall, did not sell well.
No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and
Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from
their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were
looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic
Terrorists . This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely
if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week
when the mainstream media officially switched from the "
Summer of Terror " narrative they were flogging to the new "Invasion of the Putin-Nazis" narrative
my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with
the rise of Trump, and well, I don't have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly
as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the
place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK,
sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump
was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then
the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their
legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country,"
and, as they say, the rest is history.
In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers
are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France,
Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed
to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits
like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian
, NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating
and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am
looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party "A" is challenging
Neoliberal Party "B" for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign
nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity
and, you know, whatever.
If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Robert Mueller was FBI director on
September 11, 2001 (he was appointed on September 4).
Now Russia is officially a pariah state, any contacts with Russian officials can be a career
limited move.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. ..."
"... In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees. ..."
"... Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign. ..."
After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy,
and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people
has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks
within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not
written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real.
Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible – and Trump's
goal
of "getting along with Russia" will surely not be implemented now that the regime of the special
counsel has trumped him – but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive, and perhaps
prosecute him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the process.
No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about
the future of our republic. Because the warning to our politicians could not be clearer: So you want
to effect a fundamental change in US foreign policy? You dare to question the permanence of NATO?
Let this be a lesson to you.
This goes way beyond the Trump administration: the potential targets of the investigation are
potentially unlimited. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein's
letter to the Special Counsel – Bush era FBI Director Robert Mueller – also states that the counsel's
purview includes "any matters that arose directly from the investigation," as well as "any other
matters within the scope of
28 CFR 600.4 (a) ," which
refers to anyone who might conceivably be involved in obstructing the Special Counsel's probe.
In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history
of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe
into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional
committees.
Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations
with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California)
in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign.
Furthermore, any media outlets that either supported Trump, had a good word to say about Trump,
and/or dissented from the Russophobic hysteria that has gripped the "mainstream" media are liable
to be scrutinized. Journalists with "Russian ties" – no matter how tenuous – will be caught up in
the witch-hunt. The Washington Post gave
front page prominence to a group of anonymous "researchers" that calls itself "
PropOrNot
," which has compiled a lengthy list of "pro-Russian" media outlets and web sites – including
the Drudge Report, and Antiwar.com.
The dynamics of the witch-hunt will play out in the manner in which it has operated up until this
point, only more so: the "mainstream" media will act as the research department of DOJ investigators,
"uncovering" the "pro-Russian" network in the US, inviting Mueller to move in for the kill. Politicians,
journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for
"Putin's puppets."
We haven't seen this kind of thing since the 1950s. Indeed, the history of these political lynchings
goes all the way back to the
Moscow Trials conducted by Stalin and his henchmen, who consolidated their power by prosecuting
"Trotskyite wreckers" and other "enemies of the people" – to the applause of Western "liberals."
What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have
routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States. Yet it is more – and worse – than
that.
This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus."
It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial
complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war. It is, in effect, political
terrorism – that is, an attempt to achieve political-ideological goals by the threat of force, i.e.
the threat of State coercion. The police state methods utilized by law enforcement agencies in this
country since 9/11 – universal surveillance, and the whole menu of cyber-spying techniques exposed
by Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks – will be deployed. And it won't just be our own American spooks
doing the eavesdropping.
The involvement of the
British and other European intelligence agencies in this regime-change operation on American
soil is
well-known : it was a "former" MI6 agent, one
Christopher Steele , who authored and circulated the infamous "dirty dossier" on Trump. The Ukrainians,
in particular, are in the forefront of this campaign: their targeting of Paul Manafort is out
in the open . And
a recent article in the Washington Post which relates a conversation between GOP House
majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and others, has McCarthy saying he thinks both Trump and
Rep. Rohrabacher are "paid by Putin." The exchange took place on Capitol Hill, after a meeting with
the Ukrainian envoy – and the Post , in a story datelined Kiev, reports that it was "recorded."
So who did the recording? My bet is on the Ukrainians.
"... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
"... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
"... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
"... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
"... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
"... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
"... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that
we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.
And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism
on the horizon.
But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the
role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored
? I think not.
With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste
can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of
the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical
changes.
When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties,
it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust
of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as
an "occupying force".
That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call
it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and
common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual".
Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.
At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some
even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate
who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination.
The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar,
ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become
so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.
... ... ...
The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over
the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated
purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many
elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise
in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag
is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.
... ... ...
Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively
after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting
decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied
by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and
corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings
accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer
, was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests
in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial
transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating,
and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises,
and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of
the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and
fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.
...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid
of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before
the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk
about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday
Night Massacre."
That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even
minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.
... ... ...
There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly
problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself.
But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the
Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.
IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal
wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian
knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.
"... The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory. ..."
Clear evidence, if any more were needed, of Russia's weakness and the fact that, despite all
its bluster, the place is just a Third World shithole compared with the mighty West under the
avuncular leadership of "Uncle Sam".
Thanks for the timely reminder of the reality of the situation as regards Russian capabilities!
Karl, please read that article properly. The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces,
not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts
with another in southern Syria territory. We should be glad that the SAA has got this far in the
war that it can plan for and carry out this particular project to secure Syria's southeastern
borders. Russian help was absent because the Syrians did not ask for it, they believed they and
the Iraqis could do it themselves. They would have prepared for the possibility of being attacked.
Please give the Syrians and Iraqis some credit for having got this far despite being under US-coalition
attack. (But of course you won't because Ay-rabs are brown people of low IQ in your estimation.)
Plus it is not just the US involved in hitting joint Syrian-Iraqi forces at al-Tanf – there are
British and Jordanian special forces there as well. So this is a major operation to clean out
not just ISIS and other jihadi fighters but the foreigners embedded with them.
Be realistic for once, Russia isn't going to shoot down US (or Israeli, for that matter) aircraft
unless Russia's own personnel on site are being threatened. The Russian air defense assets are
there to protect Russian troops, not to cover Assads ass everywhere in every way.
In practice, this means that they're basically never going to be used because both Israel and
the US are actively discussing things with Russia and when they strike Syrian regime targets on
occasion they pretty much do so with tacit Russian approval, and it means little to the Russian
plan.
Russia isn't there to provide some kind of unconditional full-on support for Assad, again,
they're there to kill jihadis from the Caucasus and the Central Asian republics, help the Syrian
armed forces just enough so that they do not succumb, and provide Syria with a lot of international
diplomatic support in the UNSC and so on, all this in order to get some kind of political solution
rolling. Russia has done Assad an incredible favor in this regard, and continue to do so despite
increasingly venomous attacks from the West and the other jihadi backers. But Russia can't be
expected to do everything for Assad, and they have explicitly said so.
In short, helping Syria stay afloat in the midst of this jihadi-Western onslaught is all good
but Russia has its own interests to consider as well, and they have made this abundantly clear
from the very beginning. The support is not unconditional and it's not something Russia's going
to spend everything it has on, but the fact that they're keeping up the present level of support
despite the aforementioned political/diplomatic/economical attacks that grow more vicious by the
day shows that they're taking that commitment seriously.
Now, what follows is some wishful thinking on my part Barring some kind of international agreement
on a political solution soon (sounds unlikely even though there's been progress), considering
the sheer amount of Chinese Uyghur jihadists in the Idlib region (some say they number in the
tens of thousands!) and that China's already taken a lot of steps to stop them from returning,
perhaps China could get involved and "relieve" Russia ahead. China's already been helpful in the
UNSC on Syria, and their other activities seem to suggest they're somewhat interested in some
kind of foreign adventure. Russia can't go on forever on its own fighting the good fight trying
to stop or at least slow down the Western wrecking ball It has other issues that require a lot
of attention.
It's a lesson that the West has taken a long time learning. Again: Aircraft don't take and hold
territory, soldiers do.
It is the special foreskins who are in a weak position here so attacking the Syrian/I-racki
guys is a sign of this weakness. If the sf's were heavily manned and supported they wouldn't be
bothered. Instead they have to rely on the ever reliable kurds. No wonder they are skittish.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
"... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
"... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
"... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq
War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger
threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to
start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James "
Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting
Clapper as
a defender
of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting
Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.
"More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly
sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation"
[
Politico ].
"Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [
WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before
the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.
"4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [
The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled
at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt
to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal."
That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw
with Comey).
"Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for
Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be
able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little
more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting
objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect
for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [
Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.
The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians:
sources" [
Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen
no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed
so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at
least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.
UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"
[
The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective.
"The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening
congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election
that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything
else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the
American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional
coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully
submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another
way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody
would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and
most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that
somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr.
Rogers. So who, exactly?
Some general?
Which?
"Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [
FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [
FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine
FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?
Paul Ryan shows zero interest in investigating whether Trump obstructed justice or is in bed with
the Russian government. Why? He needs to get these massive tax cuts for the 1% and take away from
the "moochers" first.
Demonization of Russia that people like PGL enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create
an alibi for Hillary fiasco.
And as any witch hunt this is an obstacle to thinking rationally, of having a rational discourse
about proper role of Russia in enhancing American national security.
Which of cause is impossible with imperial pretension of Washington neocons.
In any case Clinton's attempt to colonize Russia failed and after Yugoslavia war the USA neocons
are responsible for the deteriorating relations.
Taking into account complexity of modern weapon systems and the fact the USA has just 30 min
and Russia 10-15 min for reacting to any emerging threat of rocket attack, my impression is that
Washington is full of psychopaths, who enjoy walking on the blade edge. Kind of self-selection.
Public is so successfully brainwashed that even mentioning the fact that Putin probably does
not vivisect kittens provokes a strong negative reaction.
Invoking Goodwin law there were already a country with the population brainwashed to the same
extent.
Hey this is blasphemous non-sense! Putin vivisects kittens for pleasure! We aren't supposed to think
rationally about any of this. One of the foremost experts on Russia, Princeton's Stephen F. Cohen is
rarely heard in the U.S. because the corporate media isn't interested in the truth or rationality. There
is always some narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. ..."
"... Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. ..."
"... Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post ..."
"... And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there. ..."
"... Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ... ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ... ..."
Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies
and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian
Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most
important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the
American Committee for East-West Accord
, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.
Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will
rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views,
and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S.
politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants
as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:
Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote
this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy."
And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because
it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational
discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine
and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin
that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.
And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country,
we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill
Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he
never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break
a promise he made to Clinton."
What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international
leader to offer help to President Bush:
Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do,"
and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban
from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called
the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country,
and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this -
Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more
to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO
country.
However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the
anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second
wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.
And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed
Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated
the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the
U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev
(who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences -
despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council
resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.
All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen
warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:
If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November
2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the
European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That
brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which,
by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...
Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already
evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern
Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way.
Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United
States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...
And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument
- for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin
has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain
to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No
Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried
below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...
Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public
record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev,
which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea
and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against
the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...
This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its
military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians
will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have
been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed.
...
But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent
false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if
Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative
is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.
I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor
Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping
up to be a disastrous war in Europe.
But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption.
It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the
media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that
the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath
all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't
the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.
You know your opponent is a great master when you realize no one on this side is addressing
that assumption.
The bystanders, like us, are all too busy trying to find out if Trump didn't do this or he
did do that.
We survived the original cold war (just barely and by chance – go ahead and look up how many
times we came within a gnat's eyelash of global Armageddon) w don't need another one. The Washington
DC elite have gone so far round the bend that General Jack D. Ripper looks calm, sane and trustworthy
by comparison.
Chauncey Gardiner
Thanks for this informative interview with Robert English. I too share the view that a significant
opportunity was squandered in the early to mid-1990s to build a constructive relationship with
Russia, with the key actors mostly those who were unable to put the Cold War behind them, and
who used the opportunity to debilitate Russia economically and expand U.S. power globally; as
well as US and Western European financial and economic interests to a more limited extent.
That the Trump administration is attempting to move the needle toward a more constructive geopolitical
and economic relationship with Russia is a positive development IMO, as I agree with Trump that
U.S. and Russian geopolitical, economic and environmental interests are often aligned, albeit
not always. However, I remain concerned about global organized crime, oligarchic political and
economic control, corruption and impairment of civil liberties, issues which transcend national
boundaries and are not unique to Russia; and those politicians and their sponsors in the U.S.
who are seeking expanded military conflict.
I view the conversation reflected in this interview on two levels: Those predominantly interested
in preserving (the perception of) U.S. global hegemony, and those primarily seeking to disempower
and replace Trump as president, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In
any event, there is little question who presently has the media megaphone. It has been educational
to see how pervasive their narrative can be.
"... The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues. ..."
"... "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." ..."
he Russian-American relationship received a jolt after Washington took exception to the Kremlin's
handling of protesters in many Russian cities, including Moscow, at the weekend.
The US state department's acting spokesman, Mark Toner, told the Russian state news agency TASS
in Washington that the US condemned the arrest of the demonstrators – who were protesting against
endemic corruption in Russian politics – and demanded that they be released. TASS quoted him as follows:
"The United States strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout
Russia on Sunday. Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an
affront to core democratic values. We were troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition figure
Alexei Navalny upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raids on the anti-corruption
organization he heads. The United States will monitor this situation, and we call on the government
of Russia to immediately release all peaceful protesters."
The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which
he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive
toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues.
How far the Trump administration has consciously decided to champion Navalny's political platform,
as Barack Obama's administration did, is unclear. More likely, it is holding a can of worms that
it has yet to figure out what to do with. Besides, Obama-era holdovers are very much still present
in Trump's administration, especially in the foreign policy and intelligence establishment, and they
set the pace of day-to-day work.
Navalny is a prominent Russian opposition figure. He has been lionized in the US, although the
Moscow establishment brands him as an agent of foreign powers. Indeed, Radio Liberty & Free Europe,
which is US government-funded, has disseminated podcasts espousing Navalny's appeal to the Russian
public and highlighting alleged corruption by high state officials. Navalny's main target in recent
times has been Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is a close associate of Putin. What needs to be
factored in here is that Russia is also heading for a presidential election in March next year.
To be sure, there is more to these matters than meets the eye. Such intrusive behaviour by the
US in Russia's domestic politics has been deeply resented by the Kremlin in the past and has represented,
arguably, the biggest bone of contention the Russian-American relationship during the past several
years. However, it is striking that the Kremlin reaction to Toner's statement was rather muted.
The presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov simply shrugged off the American criticism, saying that
Russia's international commitments "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law."
Peskov took the line that the protests were in violation of Russian regulations on public gatherings,
which require organizers to receive permission from the authorities "to avoid schedule conflicts
and overcrowding."
Russia has been highly circumspect in its reactions to American provocations in recent months.
When the Obama administration declared 35 Russian diplomats personae non gratae at the end
of December, President Vladimir Putin held back from retaliating, stating: "Further steps towards
the restoration of Russian-American relations will be built on the basis of the policy which the
administration of President D. Trump will carry out."
However, the Trump administration ought to know that Washington has been lionizing a controversial
Russian political personality who was once found guilty of embezzlement.
When the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed anti-establishment protesters
in Moscow during the December 2011 presidential election in Russia, Putin's reaction was sharper.
"I looked at the first reaction of our US partners," he said then. "The first thing that the secretary
of state [Clinton] did was say that they [the elections] were not honest and not fair, but she had
not even yet received the material from the observers. She set the tone for some actors in our country
and gave them a signal. They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began
active work."
In comparison, Peskov simply rejected Toner's statement as inconsequential. The Kremlin does not
want to hold the Trump administration as responsible for crossing the "red line" on US-Russia relations.
The door is of course open still for a US-Russian détente. Thus, Moscow will exercise strategic patience
and let the Pentagon take its time to seek the Russian military's help or cooperation in Syria. Equally,
it stands to reason that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will go ahead with his planned visit
to Moscow on April 12 .
"... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
"... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
"... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
"... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
"... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
"... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
"... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
"... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
"... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials
or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.
There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that
Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with
emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.
So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the
claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved
in the 2016 elections.
No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated
claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution.
They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give
to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute
or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles.
They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.
It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating
propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel
agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even
remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam
from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over
and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one
quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious
and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100
percent, unalloyed baloney.
So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting
their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy".
Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and
espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid
evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.
Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But
speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation
that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling
Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not
based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats
and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork
anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant
to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information
to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor
provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to
conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.
But, why?
Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment
favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about,
sour grapes.
But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia
done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?
That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North
Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural
gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player
in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the
Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen
of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.
Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and
Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to
obstacles.
For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of
the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted
to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering
pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown
up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has
been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer
viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment
is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is
because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles
because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw
the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another
battered war-torn part of the world.
So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught
to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything
under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsführer, James Comey, who -- at various times
in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including
torture , warrantless wiretapping,
and indefinite detention." (ACLU)
This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic.
Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination
have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.
"... The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today. ..."
"... Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia too, while they are it. ..."
"... I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had an expose/speculation written about the whole affair. ..."
"... Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present, he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts. ..."
"... Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT and Alexeyev. ..."
The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today.
Regardless of whether it is fact, fiction or something in between (I think we can agree that
there are no 'gay concentration camps' as some of the British media proclaimed a week or so ago),
it is I guess a blessing that the Ukraine, in 'Celebrating Diversity'* banned Russia from the
contest. Otherwise we would have seen 'pressure on eurovision' etc. to not allow Russia because
of events in Chechnya. Kiev rather ruined this latter plan, but ultimately the prepared media
storm was still let go despite its main goal having already failed.
As we have seen, this story has waxed and waned since it was first reported selectively in
the western media from Novaya Gazeta, the latest recharging being the deliberate march to deliver
a petition to the Kremlin, guaranteed to garner news headlines as the organizers were not interested
in asking for official permission. As Mark Ames noted in a recent post at eXiled Online (not to
mention the toxic, anti-semitic amoral f/tard Nikolai Alekseyev who I posted about a while ago
and not long after the story broke and also saw the same sources Ames quotes), the LGBT crowd
is fully signed up to the US agenda even if it means keeping silent about the plight of LGBT in
US client or allied states.
It seems to me that just about everything including the kitchen sink being thrown at Russia.
Maybe the neocons and their willing idiots sense they are running out of time and it doesn't matter
how outrageous the claims are, best get it in. That's the thing about pendulums. They always swing
back, whether you openly recognize it happening or not.
Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is
not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody
hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia
too, while they are it.
I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had
an expose/speculation written about the whole affair.
Tl;dr version – it's all about the money and power struggle within grant-sucking professional
"civil-rights activists" crowd, this time – among teh ghays.
The whole fervor with which both our liberasts and the Westerner decry and discuss this non-issue,
based only on a ballsy claim by a shitty news rag, proves once more, that even the people, who
claim to be irreligious (i.e. the aformentioned crowd) still need a prothesis for a faith. The
conspiracy theories and fake news following is just the thing they want.
Update: went to the semi-revived eXiled-online, read Ames' two-parter. On the one hand – good
stuff about Alexeyev the chubby arch-gay of all Rus (or so he claims). Good links about the collusion
between the "professional gays" and the Western (read: USA) powers that be, replete with them
shyly not yapping about the conditions of teh ghays in the countries which are "allies". and "strategic
partners" of the USA.
Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present,
he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed
eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts.
Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT
and Alexeyev.
Essentially Hitler Germany attempt of colonization of Russian lands up to Ural mountains was
to inspired by the achievements on US colonists as for Indian population with Slavs. "Wiki says 50%-60%
of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians
and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation
there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain."
Notable quotes:
"... Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted
by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence
one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes ..."
"... There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible,
even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's.
Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also,
while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off
a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists
(if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue). ..."
About two thirds of the USSR's 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its
prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people
– an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the
600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of
which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).
About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German
POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had
the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German
number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That's not far off
the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia
in 1941).
It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of
the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming
there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan
Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50
million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million
Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if
these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.
And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the
more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don't quite realize what Hitler
had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of
the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the
overall Soviet victory.*
How many rapes is one death/murder "worth"? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse,
perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree.
It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30
years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for
rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to
be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually)
and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually,
as per
police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape
is on average 20% as "bad" as murder. ( Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because
sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually
considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them
than there are rapes ).
Therefore, let's say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million
Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or
the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of
the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the
Nazi crimes against Russia.
Now to be sure you can argue that not all "murders" are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide,
like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths
incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred
due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society
tends to consider soldiers as pretty much "fair game" (though it is questionable to what extent this
can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility
of opting out by applying for a "conscientious objector" status at the cost of their social reputation,
as in the less "total" conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well.
There were traumatic gang rapes, to
military
brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with
one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.
Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time "hunting groups" ventured
out of Wehrmacht positions. "We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina,"
said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, "We had orders to bring girls to
the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload
of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning."
In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice.
"There were military brothels, called Puff," recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, "They were
present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps.
By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions."
But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily,
in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes
seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women
were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers' brothel
in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.
After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: "In
the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated
by the fascists."
So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried
an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army's abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort
women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months
of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the
death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the
overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.
Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his "
toast to the Russian people ," Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian
lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number
died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including
East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than
Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all
the Red Army rapes in Germany.
Another excellent book that kills the "clean Wehrmacht" myth is "Third Reich at War" by Richard
Evans. He shows that the German practice of taking local women to serve in brothels or simple
outright rape started already in Poland in late 1939. And Evans is no Germanophobe, far from it
@Glossy Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than
fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?
I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to
East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.
There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly
because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.
It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such
an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.
The 1947 Soviet famine and the entitlement approach to famines Michael Ellman
This paper presents an analysis of the economics of the 1947 Soviet famine, using data from
recently declassified archives. It is argued that the best estimate that can currently be given
of the number of excess deaths is the range 1·0–1·5 million. The demographic loss was greater.
During the famine, surplus stocks in the hands of the state seem to have been sufficient to
have fed all those who died of starvation. The famine was a FAD2 (preventable food availability
decline) famine, which occurred because a drought caused a bad harvest and hence reduced food
availability, but, had the priorities of the government been different, there might have been
no famine (or a much smaller one) despite the drought. The selection of victims can be understood
in terms of the entitlement approach.
[...]
Conclusions
●
The 1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine was the fourth and last Soviet famine. It began in
July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly dimin-ished in intensity,
although there were still some famine deaths in 1948.
●
The best estimate of excess deaths that can currently be given is the range 1,000,000- 1,500,000.
The range is relatively wide because of the uncertain relationship between registered mortality
and actual mortality. The largest number of excess deaths was in Russia, followed by Ukraine
and Moldova. In percentage terms, the largest number of excess deaths was in Moldova and the
smallest in Russia.
●
The demographic loss was greater than the number of excess deaths since it also includes the
fall in the birthrate compared with what it might have been under non-
famine conditions. According to a present-day Russian historian, the demographic loss in Russia
was three times the number of excess deaths.
●
The level of grain stocks at the end of the agricultural year 1946–7 seems to have been in
excess of the minimum level of stocks required to maintain the rationing system. Surplus stocks
seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation or starvation-induced
disease in the agricultural year 1946–7. This was still more the case with the victims who
died in the agricultural year 1947–8.
●
It is not true that the level of grain stocks in the hands of the state was constant or increased
during the famine period. Stocks fell during the main famine period (the
agricultural year 1946–7). Nor is it true that grain exports increased in the agricultural
year 1946–7. They declined then.
●
It is not true that the Soviet authorities paid no attention to famine relief. They did undertake
some famine relief, but not enough to prevent large scale mortality from starvation and starvation-related
diseases. They also permitted substantial foreign help. Nor is it true that they ignored the
needs of agriculture. They increased seed loans in 1947 to enable the spring sowing to go ahead
smoothly despite the shortage of seed at the farms.
@Mr. XYZ @Anatoly Karlin: Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union's population
have been in 1991 if it wasn't for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would
375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too
high?
Unlike the times of Mongol Conquests and other great invasions/wars that ancient reports are
dubious and deaths are less than what historians find out, the World Wars had more accurate ways
to calculate deaths and they had more accurate numbers in their reports. But then veiled interests
and propaganda at that time and now are even more blatant than in ancient times, with numbers
being inflated or diminished.
.
Take the Rape of Berlin, for example. Its numbers showed up pretty recently and only taking account
the passages of one hospital counting abortions and victims of rape, using that as basis for dubious
calculations to reach the 2 million number.
.
Or the Holodomor that accounts only ukrainian lands, sometimes ignoring the effects of famine
and confiscation in other places inside Russia. Most important, the belief that the most brutal
confiscations were straight out enforced instead of a consequence of farmers that were secretly
getting rid of most of their grains ahead of time or some of them even destroying it and killing
livestock just to not let it get into officers' hands.
.
Even the deaths by the secret service in disclosed documents do not mirror the exaggerate numbers
gave by mainstream sources.
.
There's no doubt that the Soviet Union in war time, given proper research and calculations, is
still a system that killed millions unjustly directly or indirectly, but mainstream media likes
to inflate numbers to give an extra indignation and make sure people knows how horrible the system
is. In fact, no one in World War II is exempt of a large number of deaths (again, be it direct
or indirect), even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the
opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed
mass killings against chinese people.
There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as
possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse
than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while
Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist
despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant
following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale
sign they are a globalist ideologue).
At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.
@unpc downunder There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia
as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners
was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism,
while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively
nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a
significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's
a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).
At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.
@Hector_St_Clare Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't
that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
"It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75%
of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest."
It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about
75% of the Soviet population
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.
Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75%
removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent
to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of
40 million or so would remain.
Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to
forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed
in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A
million Indians had died of starvation.
All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes
by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder.
We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies,
in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.
It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about
75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism
was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy
and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream
zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.
I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar
in principle – though not scale! – to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have
calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern
Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages
these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew
Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.
It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75%
of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism
was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy
and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream
zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.
I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar
in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have
calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern
Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages
these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew
Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.
@Greasy William What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany's borders? Do
they want to regain Germany's lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo
Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?
@German_reader I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers
at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania
probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist
(Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia,
and similar in Poland.
I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being
tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an
uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many
soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were
brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in
the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).
@Nador Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped
and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers
happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper
clothes with her.
@neutral You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda
is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the
(((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going
to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that
are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
@German_reader I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped
by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression
that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after
WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You
can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter
has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme
(and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just
as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw
around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which
have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the
issue of rape in 1944/45 though.
@JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps
you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest
opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping
up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives
have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton
for President after all.
Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and
very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2?
Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it
for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine
crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get
on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.
@JL Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the
megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I'm exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend
a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it's mostly East Coast liberals.
I don't pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can't name any specific sources.
But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a
vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths
than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians."
This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?
Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they
are not going to raise this as an issue.
The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects.
To that end, they don't care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it
furthers their goals. It's no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia.
Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand
for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.
The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to
neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?
Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler"
(whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians."
This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
"Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat
Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were
far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even
about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.
Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler"
(whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians."
This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
"Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat
Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were
far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even
about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.
@RadicalCenter They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their
rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I'm
not and I don't.
Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central
Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off
by the US.
This is a very awkward topic as i understand both sides.
The German attack forced the Bolsheviks to change their policy towards ethnic Russians – what
would the Bolsheviks have done to the Russians over time if the Germans hadn't attacked?
I think it's possible to guess what they would have done by what is happening in the West today
– some people want a world of 85 IQ slave cattle so there's no competition.
So what was the best out of three terrible options?
1) German attack and victory
2) Bolshevik victory (no war and eventual genetic mutilation of the ethnic Russians)
3) German attack weakening Bolsheviks but not winning
To me the correct analogy is to an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself because
of an infection – where the Bolsheviks were the infection.
Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier
than anyone who came before, in centuries.
In the case of Stalin - not millions.
http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/ "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes")
in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people...
during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital
punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below -
2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".
Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will
be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.
" A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread
hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives,
in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)
Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"
@JL I'm interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here?
Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In
light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told
him that were the German soldiers' deaths Stalin's responsibility, then he would have to explain
why that paints Stalin in a bad light.
both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries
Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier
than anyone who came before, in centuries.
In the case of Stalin - not millions.
http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/ "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes")
in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people...
during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital
punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below -
2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".
Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will
be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.
" A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread
hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives,
in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)
Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"
@JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps
you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest
opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping
up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives
have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton
for President after all.
Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and
very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2?
Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it
for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine
crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get
on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.
It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75%
of the Soviet population
This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.
Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75%
removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent
to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of
40 million or so would remain.
"The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate
targets, Russia and China, until they break or capitulate to U.S. domination of the world. The
current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional
U.S. "War on Terror" scenario. But these mega-lies can no longer mask the great obscenity of the
21st century: that the U.S. is allied with al-Qaida, whose jihadists act as imperialism's foot
soldiers in the Middle East."
Absolute take down of the psycho shtstains in Brussels and Washington DC
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"
It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast
something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence
the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.
"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have
to show that they believed it happened.
"WASHINGTON DC: Six top US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday they agree with the conclusion
that Russia acted to influence last year's election, countering President Donald Trump's assertions
that the hacking remains an open question."
"Asked whether they believed the intelligence community's January assessment that Russia was
responsible for hacking and leaking information to influence the elections was accurate, all six
spy and law enforcement bosses appearing before the panel said "yes."
Trump's firing of FBI director 'domestic matter': Kremlin'"
Demand these vermin proffer PROOF that Russia F'd with the 2016 election..
Then Fire every last one of these cckskkers..declare martial law if necessary
They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"
It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast
something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence
the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.
"Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have
to show that they believed it happened.
"... Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia. ..."
"... During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. ..."
"... The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue. ..."
"... None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning. ..."
Four issues got Donald Trump elected president: immigration, free trade, political correctness,
and the quest for American world hegemony along with the wars that it spawned. If he is to be reelected,
he must deliver on all four.
Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration
is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have
seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials
race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers
from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised,
we are going to seek better relations with Russia.
During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which
they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. Most of
their militaries are suited only to the parade ground, and a small parade ground at that; the entire
German Army now has only 225 tanks. It would have trouble taking Luxembourg.
President Trump was the antiwar candidate, but we hear nothing from his White House about ending
the wars in Afghanistan or, more broadly, the Middle East. Go ahead and defeat ISIS, at least in
the sense of preventing it from holding territory. But what then? Wiser Fourth Generation entities,
or non-state forces, such as Hezbollah, will operate within hollowed-out states rather than attempt
to become a state. And ISIS, like al-Qaeda, is merely one head of the Fourth Generation hydra. How
do we preserve the state system itself in the face of the challenge Fourth Generation War poses?
The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary
to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have
large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was
its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal
accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions
at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part
of Russia, continue.
None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to
the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War,
regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until
doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform
and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning.
Why? What has led President Trump to surrender to the establishment on foreign policy without
even a fight? Several theories are in circulation. One is that the president is less comfortable
with foreign-policy and defense issues than with domestic policy, knows he can't do everything, and
is tired of media screams that he is going to blow up the world. He has therefore turned foreign
and defense policy over to Vice President Pence, who is an establishment thinker, likely under the
influence of neoconservatives. One would think that that bunch's spectacular failures under President
George W. Bush would have forced them out of town. But that isn't how Washington works. Repeated
policy failure is no bar to political success, especially if someone has access to gobs of money,
as the neocons do.
Another theory is that the White House has determined that the so-called deep state makes any
real policy change impossible. All the Trump people think they can do is try to expose the deep state
in a long-term effort to delegitimize it. If this is true, there are some facts behind it. The deep
state-a conglomeration of federal employees, contractors, business allies on Wall Street, and essentially
anyone who benefits from the status quo-is powerful in both foreign and defense policy circles. To
talk about military reform is to threaten the single largest honey pot on earth. The status quo in
foreign policy-which is to say a quest for world hegemony, for Jacobin ideas of democracy and "human
rights"-has tremendous ideological backing within the State Department and much of the rest of the
government, the media, and academia. Even for a president who enjoys saying, "You're fired," these
are hard nuts to crack.
But
if Mr. Trump is to have a successful presidency, he must find a vise for cracking them. Turning foreign
and defense policy over to the Republican establishment guarantees more failures of the kind we know
all too well. We will start new wars, then lose them. If those wars are with either Russia or China,
the scope of the defeats could be historic. We will pour more trillions of dollars into the sand.
And the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation will grow, spread, and win.
At home, by failing to deliver on one of his four most important campaign pledges, President Trump
will weaken himself. He won the election because enough people voted against the establishment, both
its Republican and Democratic wings, and those voters will not turn out again if he merely puts the
Republican establishment in power. To the contrary, those voters will again seek someone who is anti-establishment,
this time with the seriousness and persistence to fight the establishment and win. President Trump's
success in the 2016 primaries will bring such people into the fray. And the president will, in the
end, get trumped.
William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare
Handbook.
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right,
from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate
presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.
They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist
commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into
Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen
addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees,
unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.
The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le
Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove
France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars.
Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched
bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the
EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase
trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel
Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight
in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the
35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to
prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises
to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for
equal pay for women.
Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links
to terrorists.
Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs
Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited
from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy
Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist'
Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.
Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose
demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of
public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.
Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European
Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for
French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO
wars on three continents.
Propaganda, Labels and Lies
Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one
conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor,
not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.
Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the
media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current
supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.
The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism'
and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the
oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.
Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs
and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling
the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands
for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies,
budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.
Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction
of the National Front Party.
She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's
rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers,
public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial
revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers
as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers
and business owners.
Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and
political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize
the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the
profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters
of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the
lesser evil with the greater evil.
If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard'
and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades
in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential
'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.
If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine
will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does
not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.
This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left'
is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism,
mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left'
or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment
in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment,
lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement.
It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum
seekers being deported.
The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore
welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more
an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases
than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.
And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so
many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the
working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic
group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable.
The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among
their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.
The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often
exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they
don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and
thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)
Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short
video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with
Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:
The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest
most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have
enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum
over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and,
instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran
and Palestine."
Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found
himself neutered by invisible rulers?
France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on
hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein
lies the rub.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North
America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes
that had never seen or heard of the white man.
Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the
abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least,
weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where
- after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives
and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).
But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look
much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while
the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession
laws exist for a reason.
Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then
bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians
didn't do it to themselves.
@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she
married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol
She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)
@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though
opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"This bill will, I
hope, never be implemented, because its implementation provides for a power
scenario with forced inspection of tall ships by American warships. This
kind of power scenario boggles the mind, because it is a Declaration of war"
quoted Kosachev, RIA "Novosti".
In fact, this is a major reason, namely forcibly stopping and
inspecting neutral ships, why President Madison declared war against Great
Britain in 1812 and why Great Britain in her turn was perilously near
declaring war against the USA in 1861 following the "Trent Affair".
Russia needs to slap down these retarded propaganda koolaid drinkers.
Clearly the exceptionalism has gone to their heads inducing substantial
rot. For starters Russia needs to declare a foreign military asset free
zone along its borders, well beyond the 12 nm limit. This FMAFZ is like
the AZIZ but with teeth, including an explicit threat to sink any US/NATzO
ship that enters it. Let NATzO bleat and wail, it does it already. Time
for Russia to live up to its "badness" image and give western fuckers a
serious headache.
kirill
,
May 5, 2017 at 6:51 am
Archives reveal collusion between the Nazi Reich and its nominal enemies in
the west.
When I use "NATzO" instead of "NATO" I am being precise about the nature
of this pack of hyenas who have the same agenda as the Nazi Reich against
Russia.
Reply
"... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
"... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
"... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
"... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
"... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort
to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance
their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new
technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal.
This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US
ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would
expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a
nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
It continues:
Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry
and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and
Theodore Postol. Their report continues:
This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from
the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear
strategy and intentions.
Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly
feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake
countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian
nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the
possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created
by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used
in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.
The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be
likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:
Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily
on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot
see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States.
(The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)
In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched
a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had
- and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike
attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack
against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet
with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of
retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and
thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might
remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and
result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before
he kills himself.
Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of
situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's
decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide
on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate
the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before
then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching
that danger.
The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The
co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential
source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal
operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly
a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the
main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance,
it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but,
clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic
missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this
situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has,
as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic
objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public
that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of
the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such
a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear
indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about
'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would
almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated
and no longer a threat.
The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance,
on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence
- the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the
idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world
would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a
conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable
planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was
the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations,
Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept
of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia
. Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such
idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above
(the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush
goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly
initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate
source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the
original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of
Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only
now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun
in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers
trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.
This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope
that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as
to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history,
and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person
recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time;
because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after
the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible.
This is where we are at the present time; and,
ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring
as a result.
This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come
from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes
first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus
preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter,
then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first.
He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand
down the threat, now.
100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with
Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim!
Read More
100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical
that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's
claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the
reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make
meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa
Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read
More
300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared
to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as
a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. Read More
I was enjoying the article until I came across the paragraph mentioning "humiliation" as a
factor in deciding to launch a nuclear strike. Yeah I can see the point, it's better not to get
humiliated but it's okay to destroy the life in our planet in the process.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over
nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on
how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the
rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes,
stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile
defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the
airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.
We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown
pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break
that God has given us.
100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be
preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They
have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it.
Read More Agree:
Z-man
200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach
front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department,
and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
– called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a
whim. Read More
200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability
created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will
be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since
the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result")
and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate
government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated
"freedom fighters."
Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the
consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds
of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions,"
but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit
by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear.
Read More
100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
Read More
200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating
nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly
catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar
incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human
race itself.
It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia
and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is
evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning
times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who
is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it.
If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most
of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence"
is fully operational.
Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides
know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and
also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. Americans, war and mass casualties perfect together. Just keep
their beer, drugs and professional sports . Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility,"
– yes, this is a bitter truth.
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," indeed.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.
For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia
has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less
tractable and dangerous.
100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability?
Read More
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill
the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive,
we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as
you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul.
Read More Pandos
,
May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
200 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed
explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly
hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession
of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality.
Read More
100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance.
Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination
and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering"
or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr.
Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten
to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).
One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely
that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in
capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the
bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided.
Read More Anonymous
White Male ,
May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed,
no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from
moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically
or financially."
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "
Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing
in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).
200 Words
@another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation,
read my previous comment and this one.
START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing
did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles
of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing,
the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed
and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities,
especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.
The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident
that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and
all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no
command any more. Read More
In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor
anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze"
on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the
principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who
has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of
reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia.
The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this
morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the
more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.
Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly
made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously
believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots
to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than
Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've
been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel
that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate
a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would
they need to?
The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom
were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected
officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say.
This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative
gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words
@Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke
exchange. It is their fault.
Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie.
Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and
studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians.
The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No
doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such
as Likud), is the House of Saud.
200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law
that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two
Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled
tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.
Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated,
'if they again started a world war'.
My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry
out his threat.
100 Words
@Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion.
China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now
(but advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at
least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to
shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which
are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor
is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make
even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US.
Read More
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the
authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description,
Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster
who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to
be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that
they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration
bombing of Kosovo
https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond
; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait
https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts
Read More
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds
like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something
and remarket it? Read More
100 Words
@Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China
is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but
advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least
two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot
down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also
almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US
ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a
partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based)
discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal
Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:
National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized
every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once
in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? Read More
200 Words
@Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
...... Even that wouldn't be enough.
Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously
building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history
of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing
for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where
Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people
like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that.
Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some
random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian
troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.
300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a
plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia
with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies
just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities
relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone
thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the
actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia,
for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of
such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the
end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing.
Read More
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation! Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed
feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with
Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper
level you need to read "200 years together."
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.
Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am
knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.
What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.
I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.
@Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable
to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their
own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right.
Read More
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher
in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
- Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by
numerous venues –
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
@annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes
a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."
100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA
DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary
of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation
on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards
towards Russia.
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US?
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO
or the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe
), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And
then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not
happening. Read More
This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian
paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or
the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe),
being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then
again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening.
In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front
property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and
other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
- called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on
a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA
is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese,
are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated
by the Russian and Chinese? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying
the authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown --
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown
agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like
Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who
has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be
carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they
are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing
of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian
Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm
sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens
of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about
Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for
revenge? Does anyone? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments Randal
,
May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct,
but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such
intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.
Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through?
The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Where did you hear that?
FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.
Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.
Here's a primer.:
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese,
is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either
completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin
to ask questions, and searching questions "
I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:
"Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in
Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
-- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous
venues --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history:
it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them
to hate, and then kill, another entire population.
"Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
200 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation!
Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel
somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians
on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level
you need to read "200 years together." Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening
thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse.
Read More
100 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being
unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus
making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap.
Read More
100 Words
@Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things
where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around
the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target
even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The
optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect.
Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique.
An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is
to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo.
A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
400 Words
@El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
No, it's the prequel:
Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or
a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in
the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues –
Read More
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?
Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding
of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise
a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which
does not exist.
200 Words
@jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground
silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be
keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country
ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous
Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.
However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept?
Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.
Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation
damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if
you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those
who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no
doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this
way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed
say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect
of the explosions, not at any residual effects.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a
tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the
7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
**Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend
the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all
his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting
lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan,
non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives.
Read More
@Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling
as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you
into talking nonsense. Read More Anon 2
,
May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
300 Words
@Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements
with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little
history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad
Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also
initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until
all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course,
is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns
based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.
The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic
Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically
cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece
of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region
would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the
greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign
affairs?
The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes
little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is
so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander
missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror.
This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness
are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
100 Words
@Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful
progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making
billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan
is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that
as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important
'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.
The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration,
but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining,
much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable
amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until
something happens to oust it. Read More
@Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall.
I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still
a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand
better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for
reading.
"... Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words". ..."
"... It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the revolution set in motion or its Soviet past." ..."
"... And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.") ..."
"... Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens ..."
"... Al Jazeera broadcast a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi; the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in Doha, Qatar. ..."
"... This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media. ..."
Our deeds still travel with us from afar; and what we have been makes us what we are.
George Eliot, Middlemarch
We have arrived, in my opinion, upon the moment in the course of human history which marks the
nadir of the journalistic profession. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the occupation could
become more debased, more wretched than it has become already, and what we refer to as the 'mainstream
media' no longer makes any effort to tell the truth, to substantiate what it purports to be true
with hard evidence or even any evidence, or to disguise its service in the cut and thrust
of political bias and character assassination.
Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland
Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers
crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite
their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth
a thousand words". But his dinky little cell-phone camera is ever ready to do yeoman service
in the pursuit of
mocking Russian
food on Aeroflot flights , and he has lots of time to arse about on his Facebook group dedicated
to what he feels is
a Russian obsession with dill . All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying,
with photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian battalions even though
he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof would have made his name a household word. Well,
he is a household word, although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean.
It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs
in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him
and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the
way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent
Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the
revolution set in motion or its Soviet past."
and selectively quoting Putin without context or background,
And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful
her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe
of the 20th century.")
so as to imply yet one more time that Putin seeks to recreate the Soviet Union, the author persists
with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the American presidential election to prevent Hillary
Clinton from winning.
He and his fellow western journalists are aided in this bizarre allegation by the USA's intelligence
agencies, who claim to have evidence that points to Russian interference. They can't show anyone,
of course – everything the CIA deals with has important national security implications, and if they
told the world how Putin hacked American elections, well .well, he might do it again. Or something.
Consider. What actually happened? Information was released which reported that Mrs. Clinton was
using a private email server to conduct government business, as Secretary of State for the Obama
government, so as to avoid the law which required all official email traffic to be archived as government
property.
Was this true? While I can't speak to her motivation, her unauthorized use of a private server
is a matter of public record, as are testimonials from State Department staff members that they mentioned
repeatedly the behavior was not permitted, to which Mrs. Clinton allegedly replied that she had permission.
If she said that, it was a lie.
Then information was released which said the Democratic Party establishment was conspiring to
rig the Democratic nomination for Mrs. Clinton by manipulating the process against Bernie Sanders,
who enjoyed a significant following and who was assessed by polling results to have the best chance
of beating Trump. Was that true? Sure was; the DNC chair, Debbie Wassserman-Shultz,
resigned in disgrace – Mrs Clinton promptly promoted her to honorary chair of her presidential
campaign, and President Obama rushed out a supportive statement as well, demonstrating that political
heavyweights don't really care if you rig elections as long as you're not Russian.
So what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the release of damaging
information about her which was true and accurate. It was not a pack of lies, and the suggestion
that the truth about such activities should have been kept from voters until after they had cast
their ballots would be monstrous. There was absolutely no proof that Russia was responsible for releasing
that information, if they even knew it, and they were pretty far down the chain of people in a position
to know.
What are the rigging methods in Russian elections of which the Kremlin is always accused by the
morally-superior beacon of democracy? Ballot-stuffing. Carousel voting, a term US State Department
spokeshole Jen Psaki was quite comfortable using in the most accusatory fashion, although she had
to admit when questioned that she
had no idea what it meant . Suppression of opposition candidates and advertising time which disproportionately
favours the ruling party. If Vladimir Putin can actually tip elections in foreign countries with
such confounding precision without access to any of those tools, why would he rely on such quaint
and archaic blunt-instrument methods to rig elections in Russia?
Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges
them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story
ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens, The Daily
Telegraph set a new standard for crawling by positing that the channel had just made an innocent
mistake, like Athens is a lot like Moscow and people make that mistake all the time. It then proceeded
to excoriate the paranoid Russians for imagining that it was done with intent. Al Jazeera broadcast
a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi;
the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in
Doha, Qatar. I've lost track of the number of accounts of Putin's fabulous stolen wealth which
he has squirreled away in secret bank accounts somewhere which nobody can find or prove to exist,
yet his status as one of the world's wealthiest men remains part of the argot of common wisdom.
Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to do; but, damn it, that 'Putin stole our election'
nonsense just turns my teeth sideways. How could he have done that? Voting machines are not connected
to the internet, and there is no realistic suggestion that Russia actually manipulated the vote count.
Somebody released true information regarding unlawful and undemocratic behavior by Mrs. Clinton,
but not a shred of evidence supporting Russian involvement has been produced, although the CIA maintains
that it knows .
Anyway, I wanted to take you through what is described as a
step-by-step analysis of a fake news story , an example of Russian trickery, or manipulation
by Putin's international minions. The author is eminently well-qualified to discuss fake news, or
at least as well-qualified as one can become in the short interval since caution was thrown to the
winds, and fakery in the news went from a hobby to mainstream default mode; he worked for more than
three years in Pheme, a multinational online project funded by the European Commission to define,
evaluate and model fake news.
Let's take a look. The story used as an example is a clip about Russian soldiers using the Uran
6 robotic mine-clearance vehicle to demine sites in Aleppo following the victory of Syrian government
forces' retaking of the city. I want you to note at the outset that the author claims the story is
completely false.
This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up
bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal
accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely
false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads
behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network
that is feeding our Western media.
Please note also the odd choice of words; " bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops". We'll see
if anyone actually claims that.
Mr. Derczynski acknowledges at the starting line that there is nothing untoward with the original
clip – it probably does show Russian soldiers in the performance of their duties in Syria, and the
vehicle featured probably is the Uran 6.
Then the token jackass Ukrainian enters the fray, announcing that the item is a fake and the vehicle
is actually of Croatian origin. He is quickly shot down by Marcel Sardo. I think most of us know
Marcel's work, and I have found him usually pretty accurate; always, where military hardware is concerned,
and he seems to be a bit of an aficionado. The author points out that while there is no reason at
this point to believe anything is other than what it seems, in fact this is a common tactic, and
the good-cop-bad-cop are often on the same side or are even the same person.
Then the story is picked up by RT, a source Mr. Derczynski tells us many of the Russians he talks
with don't really trust. I think you can probably imagine the Russian circles he moves in. He tells
us RT claims the Uran 6 is the same robot the Russian military used to help clear Palmyra of explosives
left behind by Islamic State (IS). Still possible this is a real story, he says, although he seems
to believe RT is setting the stage for something.
As an aside, Islamic State did in fact take Palmyra, and remained in control of it for long enough
to do tremendous damage – some of which appeared to have been wrought just for the sheer deviltry
of it and for the grief it would cause, rather than the achievement of a strategic objective. It
is difficult to imagine, I think, that the inhabitants of Palmyra left explosive booby-traps for
the soldiers who drove out Islamic State – since their rule was unpopular – so it does not seem too
much of a stretch that the explosives and mines left behind (a matter of public record) were left
by Islamic State. There is apparently nothing thus far to suggest the story is 'fake news', although
the author is suspicious about the direction it is heading.
And then, BAM! The fake hits us like a runaway locomotive.
Sarah Abdallah joins in on Twitter, attributing the explosives left behind to 'Obama's moderate
rebels'. Oh no, you don't, Sarah, you delicious-looking young female trading on your looks and flirting
with the camera. This has now just become fake-news propaganda, framing the story so that it reflects
badly on the Greatest Democracy That Ever Lived.
Let's take another pause to reflect. I have no idea if Sarah Abdallah is the real thing, or a
Putin shill – I'm not familiar with her and have not seen her before this. But how realistic is her
attribution to 'Obama's moderate rebels' of the explosives left behind in Aleppo? Well, the Obama
government was fairly well known to be
arming the Syrian rebels
both overtly (which it admitted) and
covertly (which it did not). The U.S. government also admitted, at various points in the conflict,
that it had
less and less of an idea who was who and who was al Qaeda as things went along. Oftentimes the
side the USA supported was blanket-referred to as 'moderate rebels' for the sake of optics, but it
is well-established that the USA provided not only arms, but satellite radios which would allow rebel
commanders to
call in air strikes by US military aircraft . The USA wriggled and squirmed and called for endless
ceasefires in Aleppo whenever the Syria government forces appeared about to exploit a vulnerability.
It seems pretty clear that Washington supported anyone it thought might get the job of ousting Assad
done. It is therefore quite conceivable that explosives left behind in Aleppo with the intent of
killing or injuring incoming enemy forces were
left behind by 'moderate rebels' . It is also quite conceivable that some, perhaps many of these
'rebels' were supported by the U.S. government.
Other sources go on to say that departing extremist rebels placed explosives even in children's
toys. I have no idea if that is accurate, but considered in the frame of the
deliberate murder of many children from the buses leaving Aleppo , lured out with the promise
of snacks and then blown up by a suicide bomber, I would have to say it does not seem that far-fetched.
"... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53.
N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength
to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China
would not permit N. Korea to start a war.
So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?
It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was
an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders.
An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental
ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.
Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection
of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the
Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government
has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation
against a Washington first strike.
The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason
for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites
near China's border.
In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia
and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.
China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China
has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea.
https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/
In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders
S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.
THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's
preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe
would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear
cruise missiles and the Russian air force.
But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested
in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.
The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive
nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral
behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?
What would you do?
On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China."
My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I
quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff
and provided links for his expression of concern such as:
https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/
Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to
any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround
Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the
Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning
a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility
to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world
at risk of a nuclear conflagration.
But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with
which you present it.
dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT
Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success
rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?
Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can
frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.
What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously
neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then
this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens
of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or
submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability
yet but I haven't been paying close attention.
Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only
partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war
gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course
doesn't include they or their loved ones.
We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents
and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.
I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution
designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
It had all the hallmarks:
-Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
-Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
-Trumped up charges
-Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant
op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing)
it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search
results to propaganda sites
-Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser
to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
-Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US
In Tolkien's Silmarillion
he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.
As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be
unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a
search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any
bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.
Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Paul Craig Roberts
Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People
should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited
nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects
most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was
understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is
part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good
enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however,
be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the
other side's nuclear forces.
Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has
capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make
incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown
ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM
systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and
penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it
seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be
unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.
The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons.
US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however,
the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by
threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.
It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its
conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based
systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their
missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of
limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy
the radars.
The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in
Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.
botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT
It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in
comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not
particularly accurate.
If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the
self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to
take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To
believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of
Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.
alexander says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@alexander
As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will
only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver,
Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh,
Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .
Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?
Can you really be suggesting this ?
34.Mao Cheng Ji says:
May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@utu
What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of
claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It
is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.
It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500
nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker
retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first
strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World
Domination. And that's the game.
By the by, I'm increasingly impressed with the way that popular
fiction is used to reinforce stereotypes helpful to the agendas of our
leaders. The supposedly random selection of nefarious Russkie villains in
works by the likes of Stieg Larsen, Jo Nesbo and Lee Child made me wonder
if it's random at all. The other day I was reading a Lawrence Block
novel, "The Burglar on the Prowl" which contains a McGuffin about Soviet
repression of Latvian nationalism and began to think that perhaps there's
an element of orchestration in generating stories which, oddly enough,
coincide with current political orthodoxy.
Hey Cortes, you're definitely on to something.
You should read Ted Bell's
Patriot
, which I reviewed
here
.
Just kidding. Don't waste your time. It's 10% spy thriller and 90%
Neoconesis
.
"It Is What It Isn't: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence"
Love it!
"All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with
photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian
battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof
would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word,
although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean."
*Rimshot*
" the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the
American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning So
what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the
release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. "
What won the election for Trump was the Democratic Treatment of the poor
white class, whose votes the Democrats took for granted. Clinton consultant,
James Carville, admitted that people vote based on the economy when Bill
Clinton won. But when Hillary lost, for Carville it suddenly became about
Russia, Russia, Russia, akin to Jan yelling Marcia, Marcia, Marcia on the
Brady Bunch. How does an analyst sink to the level of a school girl?
Because the Democrats ignored nearly all of the warning sings, struggled
internally, and needed someone to blame. Russia is an easy target for blame
in US politics. Accepting responsibility for the defeat would have meant a
purge of the Democratic elite from their party's leadership. When Scott
Walker won Wisconsin, the Democrats ignored it. Look at the map of Wisconsin
in Walker's Gubernatorial Victory in 2014, and compare that with Trump's
Presidential Victory in 2016. They're almost identical. The poorer whites
became, the more they voted for Trump.
The DNC has been ignoring the Rust Belt for decades. That's how Clintons
missed Obama's meteoric rise. And in this election, the poor whites have had
enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically.
They simply needed a leader that could get revenge for them on the DNC.
Enter Trump. Did he bullshit? Most certainly, but they did not care. The DNC
was focused on getting Virginia, Nevada, making inroads into a few other
states; holding their base was simply too plebeian.
And it was this shift that happened, rather than the leaks, rather than
Russia, rather than Comey, rather than anything else, that cost the
Democrats the Presidency. This simple shift of a voting block. That's why it
wasn't just Pennsylvania; it was Wisconsin and Michigan:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"The theme expresses itself in several ways - primitive vs. advanced,
tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs.
decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban."
What held the rust belt states was cities like Chicago, and poor whites
turning out. That didn't happen in this election, because"
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their
cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey,
remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big
hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV
shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled
rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion
in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about
a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New
Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering
people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites.
"Are you assholes listening now?"
On Cultural Integration:
"the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family
member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in
town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when
they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you
ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant
you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I
think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
An Issue with Priorities:
"Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead
children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena
Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those
white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street
next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry
about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel
to keep chickens in cages The foundation upon which America was undeniably
built - family, faith, and hard work - had been deemed unfashionable and
small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they
kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming
the builders for the ensuing collapse."
Most importantly, on the economy:
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step
outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking
doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went
to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly
collapsed. See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business -
a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up,
it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the
hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high
school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of
manufacturing jobs with service jobs - small towns cannot. That model
doesn't work below a certain population density."
On hopelessness:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor,
or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town,
there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and
churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means
waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all
of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The
"downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in
Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of
these towns that look post-apocalyptic. I'm telling you, the hopelessness
eats you alive.
And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and
type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has
replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as
a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities
is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate
of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians
act like they care about the inner cities."
This frustration was built up over decades. Not overnight. Not because of
an October Surprise. Not because of leaked emails, and certainly, not
because of Russia. And unless the DNC is able to grasp the basics, or the
RNC fucks up the economy, Republicans will keep on winning the presidency.
It's just that simple.
Take a look at the early footage on election night. The Democrats thought
they were going to win, even after the email release. Even after the
scandals, they thought they had the election in the bag. And that's because
you don't miss an entire electoral class overnight either. On a final note,
there's no such thing as White Privilege; it's a lie made up to take away
our Rights, just like certain cities took away the Rights of minorities. The
Rights against search and seizure is a Right, not a Privilege.
Thanks for the link to the David Wong article. I'd read it before
(possibly linked to at John Michael Greer's Archdruid Report blog) but
thoroughly enjoyed reading it again.
Guardian was an is neoliberal swamp. Those presstitutes have no honor... They will call
black white and smile.
Notable quotes:
"... The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's. ..."
"... Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see. ..."
"... Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case' and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole miserable fiasco. ..."
"... Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and John Miller / John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs' ..."
"... The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests ..."
Film director Oliver Stone has visited the Russian president four times over the past two years,
conducted a dozen interviews with him, and the results have been condensed into four hours of TV.
It is being shown over four evenings from 12 to 15 June on the
US cable channel Showtime
, and is said to be a no-holds-barred, gloves (but not shirt) off encounter.
... ... ...
How did Stone pull off such a coup? He got access to Putin when making his film about the whistleblower
Edward Snowden. The two apparently got on like a dacha on fire, and these extended exchanges are
the result.
... ... ...
Stone is likely to be pretty well disposed towards Putin. He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian
revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects
the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election.
... he reckons that the hacking allegations are fake news got up by the Democrats to delegitimise
the president.
... he still sees the hand of the CIA in attempts to "blow up" Trump and destabilise Russia.
"Russian dissidents are American heroes, American dissidents are Russian heroes" - Penny Rimbaud
The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver
Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears
to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good
guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free
that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's.
At the very least he seems to think that anything the US accuses Putin of must be false because
the US are always the "bad guy". Just because he doesn't approve of the US and/or thinks they
always have ulterior motives, doesn't mean that they never tell the truth, or that Putin
usually does. It would be more useful if he looked scientifically for the truth rather than remaining
solely partisan.
Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet
to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold
History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see.
"... He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed
at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine ...".
"... rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election ....".
As does the new book, written by Hillary insiders Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen (who got their
access due to their previous book 'HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton') called
'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'.
According to them, 24 hours after Hillary's concession speech, recognising her miserable defeat
to the short-fingered, orange bandit, campaign manager, Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta
met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case'
and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole
miserable fiasco.
Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and
John Miller /
John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative
seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading
for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs'
I'm an alt-righter, but I quite enjoyed and respected Ollie's 'Untold History of the United States'
even if I didn't agree with all of it. Most often the minority report is the more interesting.
Unless it is written by John Pilger.
You have to try and make the effort to take your blinders
off and rethink your preconceptions, and my sense is that Stone does that, while remaining civil,
prepared to listen to counter arguments and open to debate
I was tempted because I wanted to see him as a counter weight to the emerging global order in
the West. There are issues that I think the West has mishandled or used to provoke
confrontation, but Putin is basically a gangster and Russia a mafia state at the moment
Reply Share
All transitions are tough. Which country that now calls herself Democratic doesn't come from using
Mafia tactics to gain wealth. "Americans", originally from Europe, wiped out the Native Americans
and the British gained a lot from their colonial past.
It's easy to be nice when you have the power and know that you can use it when someone doesn't
do what you ask.
"He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving
a wedge between Russia and Ukraine"
I always love this idea that the CIA is able to magic up tens of thousands of people out of
nowhere and coordinate them to overthrow their government - as if there was nothing wrong with
the Ukrainian government totally betraying their promises and engaging in massive corruption and
Ukrainians were totally fine with it until the CIA used their mass mind control on them...
The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests, it can't magic them up out of
nowhere.
"He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving
a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential
election" and Oliver Stone's credibility is pretty shot....
US power isn't innocent, but neither Russian. Stone, a bit like Pilger, is at a point where
his desire to critique US power seems to blind him to the abuses of others.
"... I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass. ..."
"... My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world. ..."
"... The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast. ..."
"... When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition. ..."
"... The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. ..."
"... Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding. ..."
Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns,
I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.
Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence
of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an
inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always
called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where
a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had
a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how
could anyone now be penalized or deported.
Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the
below:
Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism?
Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump
to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed
"exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue?
Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor
and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and
economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers
by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than
unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit
To Be Racialized." Agree:
Miro23
Didn't the NYSlimes print Al Sharpton's garbage about the false Twana Brawley accusations
as though the fraud were the truth? It was a horrible witch hunt against several White men
My first memory of the Slimes was an adulatory article about Castro right after he took over
Cuba. He was going to create paradise in the Carribean. Didn't work out that way.
If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors
would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and
Syria.
Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The
only articles I bother clicking on these days – as with the BBC – appear in the Sports section.
The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.
- It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the
developing world.
TheJester
,
September 14, 2016 at 2:48 pm GMT \n
I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used
to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO,
CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the
Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even
if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they
have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other
great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and
world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
– David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.
"during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly
abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that
it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance."
Actually, it abandoned all that a very long time ago, but better to notice late then never,
I suppose.
For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times – apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100′s of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000′s. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience – basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).
Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican
criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right"
of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
Alden
,
September 14, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT \n
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie
back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up
man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped
believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic
Harper's etc.
I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical
non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend
who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really
investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people
Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly
anti White. I realized that just out of college.
The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes
blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are
a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly
black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti
black rioters than the Times.
How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally
hate Whites?
I haven't seen a NYT newspaper in decades. I know the NYT has a presence on the Internet,
but last I checked (years ago) their archives (the only thing the NYT retains of value) are membership
only. The NYT might still be a valuable record of historical events that occurred generations
past, but most everything I'm looking for has already been extracted and is publicly available
elsewhere. It's simply easier to do a Google search than find it on the NYT website (only to discover
that to view it requires a subscription). If the link has a NYT in it, I go on to the next.
When it comes to contemporary news, the last place I would look is the NYT. If I want to hear
official lies for myself, then cable TV is the only possible source. The 24/7 news cycle can be
recorded and the misstatements extracted later. A few hours later and the news has been purged
of the offense, all references removed or left dangling. The NYT is simply not useful to catch
glimpses of real events as they happen.
Finally, when it comes to analysis the NYT has, as you say, deliberately made itself more and
more irrelevant. Commentary and analysis is a dime a dozen on the Internet, and almost all of
it is of a higher quality than what the NYT prints. The NYT attacks only official enemies, and
maintains a passionless hands-off attitude towards the crimes of their powerful allies. Now, why
would I bother to read that? My time is valuable and the Internet is full of insightful analysis.
Life is too short to read propaganda.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past
centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.
nice post. thanks.
i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks
ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't
a fringe site or a pajama blogger.
i believe the group was established in the 1920′s. the piece stated that every ex-secretary
of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.
the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral
commission is too. megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control
a world population is akin to herding cats. but these three nwo groups have influence.
Nicely done. The NY Times was once regarded as America's premier News Outlet. It, was
never pristine, but one could squeeze some facts out of its pages.
Today, the Rag is excruciatingly Boring, (which is usually a by-product of propaganda organs).
The Wall Street Journal , and Washington Post , and thousands of other print
and informational medias, have declined into mind numbing and uninformative outlets.
It is one thing for a pretend Newspaper, such as the NYT to support imperialism, and
exploitation, and the rule of the Oligarchs; the NYT and the others have ever been that. But it
is another for them to become (decline into), mere propaganda outlets for Government controlling
Oligarchs.
Some say, "The truth will make us free." Unfortunately, the Truth is often, and lately, increasingly
Buried. It is the truth, our Liberties, that have received an Obituary. Orwell believed
that sad event happened in 1984 , or, certainly, by then. I believe the obituary began,
definitively, on November 22, 1963 , and expanded from there.
I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of
journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination;
mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their
friends on the left.
That said, it's hard to see this author's work to not be his response to the Times's articles
(which he includes here), which have criticized him.
Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom 's venom and
it's impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct
result of that animus.
100 Words
@pyrrhus Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions
from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending
the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.
A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of
self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes,
so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on
the back end.
Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can
be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.
@Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). You want to see serious heavy duty
censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck .er
conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment
even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey ..all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One
of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white
trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.
In the final stage, the gray lady is turning tricks for the .gov, and she'll do anything to
survive. It's like Hillary at the 911 memorial, they're all desperately trying to keep her alive
because she 's TBTF. dmaak112
,
September 14, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I
had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles
and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces.
For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I
could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted
them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me.
I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis.
I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary
opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if
you follow the line they set.
When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies
they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known
as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.
They've followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement
the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.
But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they've run their course,
in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.
200 Words NYT is now part of the U.S. Regime Media.
The biggest story that Regime Media has failed to report is this, 'the U.S. govt is supporting
Al Qaeda aligned rebels in Syria against the Assad govt'. This has been true since at least 2013
and likely true since 2012 yet it has never been reported.
Instead, Regime Media has merely repeated the position of the U.S. State Dept. without any
challenge whatsoever. What happened to the press that was suspicious of the govt narrative that
existed during the Vietnam War? It evaporated in Iraq 2002 and is now just a mouthpiece of the
govt. Sources exist other than the U.S. State Dept. Anyone who pays attention can easily see where
our narrative falls apart.
I won't go into details over all of the false narratives. I chose the most important example.
If I sound bitter, it is because I am.
DISGUSTING -- Its becoming very obvious that the so called "mainstream" media is, IN
FACT, protecting this or that Agenda ..NO WONDER people are turning to alternative media for RELYABLE
information ..WHAT DISGUSTING PIECES OF SHIT -- The New York Time is part of TIME MAgazine? I am
subscriber, I can tell you know .I WAS a subscriber .FUCK THEM !!
Mike1
,
September 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible
to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline.
Facts used have gone from being massaged to being outright false. What is weirder is that they
don't care if what they are saying is provably false.
Tim
Rupright ,
September 14, 2016 at 9:50 pm GMT \n
@TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West.
I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT,
WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets
plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you
favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have
no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly
in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since
at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories
to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have
been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election
finishes them off.
@CCZ Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns,
I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.
Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of
millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated
concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called
illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent
"migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse
who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone
now be penalized or deported.
Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:
Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even
when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to
the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?"
Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the
racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class
people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities
as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than
by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times
seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized."
Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011
and 2016:
@Alden I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966.
My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped
believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic
Harper's etc.
I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non
profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend
who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really
investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people
Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti
White. I realized that just out of college.
The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes
blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are
a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly
black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti
black rioters than the Times.
How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally
hate Whites? The fact that the mainstream media by and large hates whites is one of the main things
about it that appeals to the whites on the left. annamaria
,
September 15, 2016 at 1:28 am GMT \n
@TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West.
I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT,
WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed,
if I notice their bylines, I pass.
My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets
plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you
favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have
no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.
Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important
for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the
years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We
also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space
on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about
balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.
Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already
disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing
to learn from the MSM. " a text by Alex Gibney: "Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who
helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual
assaults"
Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke
Harding.
@dmaak112 The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position.
I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles
and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments
were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even
access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my
access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me.
I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis.
I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary
opinions would not appear.
I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if
you follow the line they set. Why might they – or at least some quite junior staff – regard you
as important enough or your comments as powerful enough to engage in the censorship which they
appear to deny?
@Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian,
the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.
That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but
there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.
One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical
comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself
(although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space"
type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian)
or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).
That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called
leading online publications.
The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but
is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece
of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and
abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes
get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.
Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can
handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average
of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political
spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic
interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.
Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness
that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light,
and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.
The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting
system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish)
it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.
Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive
proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). I really love the Unz commenting
system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter,
is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.
I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.
In his next sentence he said, "Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize, and paralyze,
but they enter into and colour the minutest cells of the brain ."
@TomSchmidt I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through
linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and
without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.
I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features. I
agree, the Unz commenting system just needed some getting used to after the WaPo system and Disqus.
It's very good. heymrguda
,
September 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm GMT \n
@nsa You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively
anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity,
they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with
a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of
crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana. Yes,
I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers
(some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's
official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring
comments. res
,
September 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@CCZ Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph
the newspaper's fixation on certain topics. I applied the term "transgender," those mostly men
(males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and
locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper's fixation
on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as
the words "racist" and "racism").
Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in
2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.
Perhaps the NY Times owners' appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black
journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor
on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also
bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.
The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in
the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS
tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words
or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google.
You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.
Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams
Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized. Thanks
for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much
more dramatic–thanks for pointing that one out.
Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don't seem to be updating it so it's less useful for
tracking changes since Obama became president.
Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I've tended to attribute the "racism" change
to Obama's second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation.
I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper.
It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving
the changes.
One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle
tool to disappear.
The New York Times has soiled its reputation long time ago. But to observe a vulgarization
of the previously respectful New Yorker is rather painful; the nest of intellectuals has become
a nest of opportunistic half-wits. The New Yorker' pandering to Clinton is beyond ridiculous.
jeremy
lansman ,
September 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm GMT \n
"As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored
election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five
officials to resign." Governing partey? Now, please explain. Is that the R which is in control
of the legislature, or the D in control of the WH? Not to defend the NYT, but I detect this writer
has an ax to grind, so has gone a bit overboard. This comment is not a news story. Just my opinion!
Anonymous ,
September 19, 2016 at 3:47 pm GMT \n
@Walter Alter The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece
for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness,
ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following
the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical
brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to
peer lateral communication.
Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances
while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES,
that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe. You seem not to know that he didn't spell the
word wrong. Both versions are acceptable.
Nice ignorant recycling of a rather stupid and childish lefty trope from the late 80s / early
90s.
Nation
contributing editor
Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new
US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at
TheNation.com
).
This installment expands upon last week's, which focused on several highly
questionable Washington narratives that imply the necessity of war with Russia. When
later asked which of these allegations was the most dangerous, Cohen responds, in
this installment, that their number is increasing and with them the risk of war. He
itemizes the Cold War narratives, or allegations, now propounded by the US
political-media establishment:
- That Moscow's reaction to the Ukrainian crisis three years ago
justifies NATO's highly provocative buildup on Russia's borders today in order to
prevent the Kremlin's intended aggression against small East European states.
- That Russian President Putin's "hijacking" of the 2016 US presidential election
to put Donald Trump in the White House was "an act of war against American democracy"
that requires a requisite response.
- That Syrian President Assad's recent use of chemical weapons necessitated
Trump's missile attack against Syria, whose leader is closely allied with Russia.
- That the Kremlin is now directing a massive campaign of cyber-attacks and
propaganda at elections across Europe in order to bring to power its favored
candidates, such as Marine Le Pen in France, in countries allied with the United
States, thereby undermining the trans-Atlantic alliance and even NATO itself.
- And most recently, that the Kremlin is colluding with the Taliban to defeat the
United States in Afghanistan.
Cohen makes three general points about these Washington narratives:
- Individually and collectively, they further militarize the new Cold War and
generate Russophobic analyses in the American political-media establishment that
incite the possibility of actual war.
- As of now, there is still no actual evidence for several of these allegations.
For example, that Putin directed a cyber-hacking operation that abetted Trump's
presidential campaign or that he is doing the same on behalf of favored European
candidates today. Or that Assad was behind the recent chemical-weapons episode in
Syria. Or that Moscow has aggressive military intentions in Eastern Europe. Moreover,
to the extent the Kremlin uses propaganda, or "soft power," on behalf of American and
European candidates, this is scarcely different from decades of US meddling in
elections around the world, including in Russia. In any event, the effect of "Russian
propaganda" is wildly exaggerated, assuming as it does that democratic citizens are
easily swayed by such "weaponized information," as though they are highly susceptible
zombies. (The allegation itself reveals a kind of contempt for the political
intelligence of citizens of American and other Western democracies.)
- And third, in the past, critical, fact-checking US mainstream media acted as a
filter between these kinds of politically inspired allegations and their warfare
impact on policy-making. For the most part, they no longer do so but instead amplify
and promote such narratives. Cohen cites several alternative media outlets that
do
offer trans-partisan contrarian facts and analyses, among them
The Nation
,
The National Interest
,
The American Conservative
,
Consortiumnews
,
the
Intercept
, and
Tucker
Carlson's evening hour
on Fox News. (Many of these alternative reports are posted
at
eastwestaccord.com
, the website of the
American Committee for East-West Accord, of which Cohen is a board member.) But they
scarcely offset the almost monopolistic impact of major establishment newspapers and
broadcasts "inside the beltway."
Cohen concludes with two recent developments that are emerging as additional
orthodox narratives in Washington. One involves the longstanding, and largely false,
narrative that Moscow alone has prevented implementation of the Minsk Accords for
resolving the Ukrainian civil and proxy war. In fact, the US-backed government in
Kiev has mainly thwarted the agreement by refusing to implement its obligations. Now,
despite the harm done to its own already crippled economy, Kiev is expanding its
blockade of Russian-backed rebel territories to include vital energy supplies. Some
observers think it is doing so to placate ultra-right forces on which it is
politically dependent. Another possibility, Cohen thinks, is to provoke Putin's
Kremlin into some drastic political or military action that would revive waning
support for Kiev in Washington and in Europe. If so, this too could lead to a
US-Russian military conflict.
The other new allegation is that Moscow is colluding with the Taliban against the
very long US war effort in Afghanistan. No doubt, Moscow, like Washington, carries on
behind-the-scenes discussions with factions of the Taliban in search of a way to
extricate itself from the war or to limit its broader impact. But anyone at all
familiar with the Russian national-security elite knows it desperately fears an
American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would leave Moscow alone to
withstand the flow of radical jihadists and heroin into Russia through Central Asia.
Indeed, the flood of cheap heroin into Russia, which Washington promised to diminish
but has not, has already caused a growing epidemic of addiction and AIDS that is well
beyond the government's capacity to cope with it.
Here too, as with other bipartisan anti-Russian narratives in Washington, there
are neither facts nor logic. Historically, such narratives have played a major role
in the onset of war between great powers. This may now be unfolding in US-Russian
relations. Very few members of Congress, the Trump administration, or the mainstream
media have spoken against these warfare narratives, which continue to mount
"... I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing. ..."
"... the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian ..."
"... if you were Putin ..."
"... while very much staying in ..."
"... de facto ..."
"... we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends ..."
Of course, it is rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE
ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a
war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality.
Again, the words "
do you really mean to say that
" clearly show that
the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and
then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the
Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein:
indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never
reached).
I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of
dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the
course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at
least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But
I don't want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous
individuals. There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and
even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity. Here is an excerpt of
an email I got this morning:
I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS
would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the
demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions
imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars
and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand
why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very
little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian
is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the
sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow
them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole
charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one
big game , which no chance of anything changing.
In this case the author
correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure
looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous
comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.
In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very
different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:
1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government
branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian
National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by
honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really
makes no sense at all.
The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the
Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first
ones just makes no sense).
Trying to make sense of an
apparently illogical policy
In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on
Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence,
what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian
commentators have already reached that conclusion:
the US are engaged
into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian
.
Thus, for the Empire, "success" can never be defined as an outcome in the
Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine.
For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change.
Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result.
A quick look at Putin's record
As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators,
I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks
or what he will do tomorrow.
But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past:
(in no particular order)
broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in
Russia.
achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which
nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).
literally resurrected the Russian economy.
rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences
forces.
severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert
Russia.
done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody
before.
made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western
propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).
stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a
Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage
of the entire region).
made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil
war.
openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model"
and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.
openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the
AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.
supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
created and promoted a new alliance model between
Christianity and Islam thus undermining the "clash of civilization"
paradigm.
booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus
(Chechnia, Ossetia).
booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia
(Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic
region, including military means.
established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China
which is at the core of both SCO and BRICS.
is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from
controlling the Russian media.
gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear
program.
is working with China to create a financial system fully
separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade
in Rubles or Renminbi).
re-establised Russian political and economic support for
Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution
in Russia.
organized the "
Voentorg
" which armed the NAF.
gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air
cover to NAF in key locations (the "southern cauldron" for example).
last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to
"sovereignize" herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.
and that list goes on and on. All I am trying to illustrate is
that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin:
his long record of very effectively fighting them. So unless we assume that
Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or
courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no
sense. His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to
explain now.
If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please set that
hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that
Putin is both principled and logical. What could he be doing in the
Ukraine? Can we make sense of what we observe?
Imperatives Russia cannot ignore
First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:
First,
Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war
against her
. What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change
followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence
including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very
existence of the Russian civilization.
Second,
Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic
regime in power in Kiev
. The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven
that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally
every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as
shown with their constant references to the use of – hypothetical – nuclear
weapons against Russia). Therefore,
Third,
regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification
is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives
.
Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I
have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It's not
even the future of the Ukraine. What is at stake here is a planetary
confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which Ifully agree with).
The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO
countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different,
multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial and indispensable in
this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the
future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As
for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to
Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more
important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:
For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost.
Forever
.
Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukies
know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of
the local population. If fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random"
or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific
and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance
similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when
they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and
Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force the local
Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's
sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If
not
de jure
, then
de facto
, Novorussia is never going to
accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia
and in Russia.
What could a
de facto
but
not
de jure
independence look like?
No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full
economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence,
locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no
official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be
called something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and
no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble – along with the Dollar and Euro –
will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will have to be
officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence
becomes visible). This will be
a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good
enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.
This said, I would argue that
both Kiev and Moscow have an
interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary
Ukraine. For Kiev
this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals.
But what about Russia?
What if you were in Putin's place?
Ask yourself the following question:
if you were Putin
and your
goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of
the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much
better for the following reasons:
it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes,
like national elections or national media.
it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the
Ukraine.
it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business,
transportation, etc.
it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate
into the Ukraine.
it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or
barrier on some geographical marker.
it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the
Ukraine.
In other words, to keep Novorussia
de jure
, nominally, part of
the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist
demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power.
In
a recent article
I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any
major consequences:
Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion,
etc.
Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian
oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness"
Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially
In other words – give the appearance of staying out
while very much
staying in
.
What is the alternative anyway?
I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what
these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a
tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering
endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the
following:
Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in
even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia
cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!
In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and
very short any kind of mid or long term vision. Just like those who
believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the
hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by
sending in tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken
was referring to when he wrote "For every complex problem there is an answer
that is clear, simple, and wrong".
The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is
always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term
but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.
But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily,
economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time.
Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this
hardly would be a very meaningful "victory". Externally it would trigger a
massive deterioration of the international political climate, while
internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists
(not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again, the answer
is that yes – but at what cost?
I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called
"Kaskad" (which later was renamed "Vympel"). One day he told me how his
father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian
insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years!
It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian
nationalist insurgents. Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely
believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years
hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?
By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule
under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war –
how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie,
Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take
arms, very successfully – but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin,
would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would
receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?
And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention
and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces. Is it not
about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?
It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media
and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well
know and respected Russian patriot and journalist – Maksim Shevchenko – had
a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most
influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual
posters on the Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA,
Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise. Or, maybe, no surprise at all?
For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in
Russia makes perfectly good sense. Either they get to influence the public
opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power.
I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand
and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people
mad at the Kremlin. What the pretext for the anger is does not matter – for
Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin it's "back-stabbed Novorussia".
And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just
"useful idiots" – God be their judge – but what does matter is that the
solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash
the regime in power.
In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded
away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely
holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes. There
are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both
in Russia (
Yuri Baranchik
)
and abroad (
M.
K. Bhadrakumar
).
But what about the oligarchs?
I already addressed this issue
in
a recent post
, but I think that it is important to return to this topic
here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or
Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life. This is not to say
that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for
that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take
them into account. The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime
controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in
Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin. The
examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can,
and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.
Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another
to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to
happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the
presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian
counterparts.
Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov
Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and
that their only "country" is wherever their assets happen to be. As a
former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus,
because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them.
Any
intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list
of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and,
of course, money.
From Putin's point of view,
Rinat
Akhmetov
, for example, is a guy who used to employ something like
200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose
official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real
loyalty: his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov,
most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but
that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to
talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian
national strategic objective in the Donbass.
I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their
enemies. With a friendly smile. This is even more true for a former
intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to
be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an
ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's
advantage. What I am trying to explain here is the following:
There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov
and various Russian officials. Some say that Khodakovski is involved.
Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such secret
negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties
involved talk to all other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting,
evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In fact, the sure signal that
somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be
speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most
definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.
One
Russian blogger
believes
that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off)
by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say
"Putin is boss". Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never. All I am
suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs
are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia
before the US armed forces entered Italy.
But is there a 5th column in
Russia?
Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev
government itself and even inside the Presidential administration. Always
remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret
services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has
tremendously weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic
Integrationists") they are still very much there, though they are more
subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev
was formally in charge.
The big change in the recent years is that
the struggle between patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th
column now is in the open, but it is far from over.
A
nd we
should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of
money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage,
cover-up, smear, etc. They are also very smart, they can hire the best
professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political
campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the
National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime
on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the
National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party
in the USA).
Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US
CIA's bidding, there is no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise
friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard
to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian
and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.
The real danger for Russia
So now we have the full picture
. Again, Putin has to
simultaneously contend with
1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the
corporate media's demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media
to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the
West.
2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks
(Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect
opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their "clear,
simple, and wrong" "solutions".
3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented
by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.
4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to
weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is
acting like a passive punching-ball.
6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete (
de
facto
and
de jure
) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely
convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by
Russia of Novorussian interest.
7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the
same.
8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful
and even potentially dangerous.
It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces
in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic
interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no other solution to
this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official
(declaratory) policy and Russia's real actions.
The covert help to
Novorussia – the
Voentorg
– is an example of that, but only a
limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions:
Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite.
It is in Russia's strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:
1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary
non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the
same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public
opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at
least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's
assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is
literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.
3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement
with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic
suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic
strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas
while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be
broke.
5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same
time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the
EU.
6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the
AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative
international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.
As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action
program. What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program
to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and
de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists
attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which
the EU would basically fuse with the USA.
Conclusion: a key to Russian
policies?
Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After
all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand
statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon
briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has
always been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the
latest bombing campaign against ISIL.
Russia and China have a
diametrically opposed tradition. For example, in terms of methodology
Lavrov always repeats the same principle: "
we want to turn our enemies
into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn
partners into friends
". The role of Russian diplomats is not to
prepare for war, but to avoid it.
Yes, Russia will fight, but only
when diplomacy has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to
deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them. It is
therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of
bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to
say "comply or else". Any petty street thug know how to do that. Russian
diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine
clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully
focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest
the entire thing blows up.
Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and
that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was).
Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so,
an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to
de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In
the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev. To
achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one
obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will
use force. In other words:
Russia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis
Empire. Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime
change in Kiev.Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from
over-running Novorussia.Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is
negotiation with all parties involved
. A prerequisite to achieve
these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in
creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state"
fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and
Poroshenko.)
As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent
zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to
make sense.
It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In
theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to
intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another "false
flag", possibly a nuclear one. I think that the Russian policy is sound and
the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances,
but only time will tell.
I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a
society where most "thoughts" are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as
Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is
turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made
worse by the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60'000 words
would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a
short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.
My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by
Russia's apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make
better sense of it all.
Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia,
the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria
Michael
Flynn and Donald Trump
Credit:
John Locher/AP
So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security
adviser before he got busted talking out of school to Russia's
ambassador, has reportedly
offered
to testify
in exchange for immunity.
For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This
is it! The big reveal!
Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting.
Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate
surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid
conspiracy.
He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient
deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an
unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump
agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed
proxy
war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia
in exchange for
Vladimir Putin's help in stealing the emails of Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.
I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the
narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of
it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful
reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be
true?
What if reality does turn out to be a massive
connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the
White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist
Louise Mensch's
construction
in
The New York Times
last week.) What if all the
Glenn
Beck
-style
far-out
charts
with the
circles
and
arrows
somehow all make sense?
This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy
theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor
has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this
Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise
of conspiratorial mass hysteria.
Even I think there should be a legitimate independent
investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover
all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up
being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of
this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.
One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that
everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot.
This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political
and media circles in recent weeks.
The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks
Putin
murdered Andrew Breitbart
but has somehow been put front and
center by
The Times
and HBO's
Real Time
, has
denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.
She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a
Russian
partisan
") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI
Director James Kallstrom ("
agents
of influence
") to Glenn Greenwald ("
Russian
shill
") to
ProPublica
and
Democracy Now!
(also
"
Russian
shills
"), to
the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony
Weiner sexted (
really
,
she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With
Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York
field office ("
moles
").
And that's just for starters.
Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters,
upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee
chair Devin Nunes,
asked
"what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.
Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott
wondered
why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board
with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!)
and
noted
,
without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time
he tweets negatively about them.
Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and
Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt
McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at
him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What
goes through the heads of such people?
I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have
been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea
to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the
media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten
the
treatment
.
I've been "outed" as a
possible
paid Putin plant
by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is
supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of
influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious
research team the
Washington Post
once relied on for a
report that
accused
200 alternative websites
of being "routine peddlers of
Russian propaganda during the election season."
Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing
when Rand Paul
balked
at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain
didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now
working for Vladimir Putin."
Even Bernie Sanders has himself been
accused
of being a Putin plant
by Mensch. But even he's gotten on
board of late,
asking
,
"What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"
So even people who themselves have been accused of being
Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants.
As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your
bashka
hurt.
Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the
Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral
following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.
Former NSA chief Keith Alexander
spoke
openly
of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a
wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of
Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting
agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that
destabilized American politics.
This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark
Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids"
mode throughout this scandal. During an
interview
with
The
Times
on the Russia subject a
month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just
be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.
Warner furthermore told
The
Times
that in order
to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century
Russian perfidy,
he was "losing himself in a book about
the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and
Nabokov."
This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on
Nabokov and Tolstoy (
Tolstoy
!) to get pumped to expose
Vladimir Putin.
Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden
darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James
Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest
company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the
key
exchange
, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier
quizzed Comey:
SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know
anything about Gazprom, director?
COMEY: I don't.
SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.
(Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is
not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it
wrong.)
As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg
noted
,
this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an
investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is
would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's
bizarre, to say the least.
Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last
week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like
Salon
insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by
those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."
These stories insist that, among other things, these evil
bots
pushed
on the unwitting "bros"
juicy "fake news" stories about
Hillary being "involved with various murders and money
laundering schemes."
Some
13.2
million
people voted for Sanders during the primary season
last year. What percentage does any rational person really
believe voted that way because of "fake news"?
I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The
Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by
long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and
enthusiasm for Sanders himself.
To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed
the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both
insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the
remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of
the Democratic Party.
If the party's leaders really believe that Russian
intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why
some
155
million eligible voters
(out of 231 million) chose not to
pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther
along down the
Purity
of Essence nut-hole
than Mark Warner.
Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of
their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this
entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading
the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in
either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting"
cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of
legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.
Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we
have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before
the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence
experts has concluded that Putin is backing the
hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.
Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what
happened last time" when people decided to vote their
consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in
seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the
non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this
didn't become an effective political trope going forward.
But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of
being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a
third problem that should scare everyone.
Last week saw
Donna
Brazile
and
Dick
Cheney
both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an
"act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end
times: as Bill Murray would say, "
dogs
and cats, living together
."
But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies
in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly
everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin
have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as
real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as
Cardin put it.
That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war
with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have
troops
within
"hand-grenade range
" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to
say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to
impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter.
This is what happens when people lose their heads.
There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are
of secondary importance to the more important question of
whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White
House.
But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still
waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine
Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the
thing we find later, as in, "
If
we do the investigations, we will find the connections
."
But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence
enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out,
it probably should.
Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to
draw President Donald Trump.
"... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
"... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
"... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
"... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
"... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
"... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
"... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
"... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
"... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
"... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
"... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
"... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
"... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
"... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
"... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
On April 15th, Zero
Hedge bannered
"Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market
for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second
term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken
over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.
This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald
Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower,
Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and
Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming
market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most
immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see
here, and
here,
and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here.
Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal
government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship
(continuation of America's current dictatorship)
to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along
with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one
knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be
no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on
the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout,
so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic;
so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.
No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be
unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014
a "limited,
regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce
global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which
"could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of
the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order
to survive WW III is simply wasting money.
But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose
preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip
on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about
this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon
Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying
bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan.
On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good
computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience
'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.
After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with
the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government
(which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for
President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence,
considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established
on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal
government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly
announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about
it.
The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or
her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside
that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be
no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny
at all.
On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The
Saker," headlined
"Trump has
lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump
is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:
Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago,
on 8 April 2016,
"CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis
doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from
hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there,
one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert
Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential
group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for
the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since
been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now
gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running
foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more
than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase
passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs
to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a
major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline
of events that Humor documented is aiming.
As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a
U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not
the 7,000
nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the
chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense
on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military
alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's
aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's
former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004,
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine
into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of
the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the
U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent
for global empire - to include Russia.)
Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's
losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory
(now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest
of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading
Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing
of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal
than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty
over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies
of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies,
would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's
side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other
than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing
its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited
war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation
of Vietnam.
However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia
would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW
II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war.
If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably
play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially
by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians
as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America
did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather
than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S.
side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia.
It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical
outcome after the war.
Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW
III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to
the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S.
(both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's
aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's
rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an
ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof
bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that.
It won't exist.
False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.
[...
Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and
medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.
Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that
very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient
against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land
USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.
HOUSTON - The Trump administration delivered a setback to Exxon Mobil on Friday, announcing that
it would not grant the oil giant a waiver from sanctions against Russia that would allow drilling
in the Black Sea.
The decision, reinforcing barriers erected by the United States over Russia's intervention in
Ukraine, was another sign that President Trump has been unwilling or unable to improve relations
with the Kremlin early in his term, after pledging as a candidate that he would seek a thaw.
"In consultation with President Donald J. Trump," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a
terse, prepared statement, "the Treasury Department will not be issuing waivers to U.S. companies,
including Exxon, authorizing drilling prohibited by current Russian sanctions."
The prospect of a waiver had drawn denunciations from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
When news of Exxon Mobil's proposal
emerged this week , Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona,
wrote in a
Twitter post , "Are they crazy?"
The matter was complicated by the continuing congressional scrutiny of reports of Russian intervention
in support of Mr. Trump in last year's election, and by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson's role
as Exxon Mobil's chief executive until the president nominated him for his current position.
Exxon Mobil applied for the waiver in 2015, arguing that it could lose its exploration rights
in the Black Sea if it did not begin drilling operations by the end of 2017 under its contract with
the Russian state oil company Rosneft.
The Obama administration did not act on the application, but Exxon Mobil hoped that the Trump
administration would take a favorable view.
The company released a brief statement on Friday that did not express regret but explained its
argument in favor of the waiver.
"We understand the statement today by Secretary Mnuchin in consultation with President Trump,"
the statement said. "Our 2015 application for a license under the provisions outlined in the U.S.
sanctions was made to enable our company to meet its contractual obligations under a joint venture
agreement in Russia, where competitor companies are authorized to undertake such work under European
sanctions."
DealBook
DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the conversation. Delivered weekday mornings
and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are
already subscribed to this email.
United States and European sanctions were first imposed on Russia in March 2014 in response to
Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Exxon Mobil signed an expansion of its joint venture
projects anyway, even after Igor I. Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive, was personally blacklisted
in connection with the sanctions.
The deal was legal, but Exxon Mobil was more fully constrained when tighter sanctions were imposed
after Russia was implicated that summer in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over
eastern Ukraine.
It has become increasingly clear in recent days that relations between the United States and Russia
are unlikely to improve any time soon. Mr. Tillerson has used increasingly tough talk to highlight
the Trump administration's differences with Russia over its alliance with the Syrian government.
He has not suggested that any sanctions be lifted, and the administration has affirmed its commitment
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European security.
Exxon Mobil's hopes to produce new oil in Arctic waters and in Siberian shale fields were delayed
indefinitely by the toughened sanctions, which prohibited transfers of drilling technology capable
of reaching oil in fields that previously had been virtually inaccessible. The company received a
few exceptions to the sanctions, including a waiver in late 2014 that allowed it complete drilling
of one exploration well in the frigid Kara Sea that it said would be unsafe to leave half finished.
A big oil field was confirmed, but no new oil was produced and exported.
Exxon Mobil has long argued that it was being put at a disadvantage against some of its European
competitors operating in Russia. ENI, the Italian oil giant, plans to drill this year in the Black
Sea, a largely untapped area with enormous oil reserve potential.
European sanctions are somewhat weaker than those imposed by the United States since they exempted
some contracts signed before the sanctions were put in place. The American sanctions drew a harder
line.
Exxon Mobil's drilling rights in the Black Sea were part of a sweeping strategic partnership Exxon
Mobil developed with Rosneft in 2011 while Mr. Tillerson was in charge of the American company. The
agreement came at a time when the Obama administration was seeking to improve relations with Russia,
and several Western oil companies expanded their operations.
Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign,
Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more
like her.
He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:
"When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas
that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children
yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."
God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the
United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?
Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual
suspects are driving him like a sports car.
The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was
better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the
Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.
Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually
horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday,
boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's
military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults,
children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he
was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.
This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him
to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that
no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!
Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.
Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings
weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.
Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually
believes what he says when he says it?
Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree
with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within
two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese
goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims.
Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for
itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust
anything the man says.
Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for
a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely
resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care
of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.
The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is,
lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your
nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply
weakness. Thus an ultimatum.
So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp
on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering
his grasp on power.
Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows
not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as
usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?
Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile
named the No Dong.
Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet
a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good
half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't
want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive
public of anything and, apparently, the President.
Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest
threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese
hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from
the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?)
In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe,
there goes NATO and with it the Empire.
Oops.
Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending
a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison
troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.
Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so
on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured.
And was. A work in progress, but going well.
ORDER
IT NOW
Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the
political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened.
Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The
country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world
in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.
Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to
day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming
an unbalanced Hillary.
Yet, apparently, he is.
(Reprinted from
Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
Bretislav Stejskal
3 weeks ago Gerry Lamb you don't really know much now, do you. You are a little Alice in wonderland
when it comes to geopolitics. Russia never ever seeked war. If you knew enough about Russia, you'd
know this first. the entire western greed cannot accept the ownership of the subhuman Russians of
a vast and rich land. To the Anglo-Saxons all slavs will always be lesser people. It's in them. They
sponsored the fascism, comunism and pretty much every evil on this planet. Even Stalin did what he
did for all patriotic reasons, while the west does it all out of a simple and pure greed.
The Russian Narrative of the Post
Cold War era in less than six minutes..
The video below contains an answer from Vladimir Putin to
a question from veteran BBC "journalist" John Simpson.. In
less than six minutes the President of the Russian
Federation explains their point of view on the post cold
war era in a most devastating manner.
It is a calm and skillful demolition of the Western
narrative regarding Russia in all it's infantile and
morally bankrupt depravity. Even those who disagree have
the opportunity at least to hear the Russian viewpoint
expressed in a succinct yet powerful way.
The core of it is that when the USSR was dismantled the
West continued with the tactics of the Cold war and
continued to treat Russia as an adversary despite the end
of the defining ideological difference.
From their point of view the acquiescence of Russia to the
Wests demands in terms of economic policy were met with
encirclement, missile shields aimed at achieving Nuclear
first strike capability and colour revolutions on their
borders to replace their allies with the stooges of the
West.
The Russian narrative has two central virtues, it is
simple and it is largely true although some less "helpful"
facts tend to be edited from the narrative as you would
expect.
plemax
2
months ago (edited)
I would say that translation is not very
accurate. It's close but sounds direct. When
Putin talks in Russian he doesn't sound direct.
He sounds firm but rather balanced. Also, he
doesn't use "I am" statements, he uses "we are"
statements. English subtitles keep showing "I
am". Or "listen to me" instead of "look". Putin
is saying "look, we did this and that".
Translation showing "listen to me, we did this
and that". Things like that make a huge
difference in the way people receiving an
information.
Good point. I am a native Russian
speaker with an English interpreter
experience spawning for former military
service (russian) and over a decade of
first hand experience of living in US.
The subtitles were quite inadequate.
Smothering the actual strong points of
Vladimir Putin while unnecessarily
escalating the other to the point of
almost sounding aggressive. I attribute
it to the usual bias of western media
that is bent on presenting Russia as an
aggressive nation and use it as a smoke
screen for all of those despicable
crimes that US commits globally
Jesus I'm a proud nationalist Brit who loves his
country but hearing Putin here I'm inclined to
agree with what he says. The Russians do not
threaten our borders in the way NATO threatens
Russian borders by placing troops within a
stone's throw of their border. Then consider the
might of NATO compared to Russia. I'm left siding
with Putin which is quite remarkable. More and
more people are beginning to question the version
of the West. Why the hell can't the West team up
with Russia to rid the world of terrorists
wherever they rear their ugly heads. Instead we
are fed the same old crap by our failed self
serving liberal traitor masters. Stop voting for
the same THREE failed political parties in the UK
and start thinking outside the box. Together the
Labour / Lib Dem and Conservative parties have
engineered the whole problem and sold us all out
with mass immigration and 1.8 Trillion of
crippling public debt. It's utter madness. I wish
we had a PM like Putin.
Putin expresses a lot of truth. Only US can be so
blind and arrogant.
Crushonius
what a condescending CUNT THAT REPORTER IS ?
paul h3
months ago
Alot of what he says makes sense.
TheSommersonnenwende
Listen to his United Nation speech! That will open your eyes for all time!
yaara513
months ago
I´m from Germany and I love you Putin -- Although German media portrays you as the devil in
person I admire you, sir.
Imran Armani
1 month ago
Russian defense Budget 50 Million US 575 Millions --------- Proves who is aggressor
Clar Wikk
2 months ago
BBC globalist cucks are traitors to the west
Ateo forever
2 months ago
I had reservations when Putin came to power, but i since changed my mind, i have more
respect for him, than any of the US presidents past and present.
PIMP EL
Putin is on offer the better leaders in modern politics , smart guy with no BS attitude..
Tony G
Whilst Putin is no saint and Russia's history is less than perfect. Their resolve is
absolute. If they say they are going to do something, they do it. If they say that they will
stand up to ISIS with the same aggression, they do it! This is not what most other EU
countries do. What EU countries do is talk then talk some more and ultimately achieve nothing.
You cannot turn the tide on ISIS unless you step away from political correctness!
꿈을어둠
5 months ago
I've always seen Putin as rational even if he isn't flawless. Let's face it, 90% of his bad
reputation comes from american propaganda, unfortunately the US controls or has major
influence on media even here in europe.
Space oriented 5 months ago
The US's media influence is even worse than the influence of nuclear weaponry. It seriously
aggravates me.
dinan5iver
5 months ago
Invaded Georgia you say? If you're referring to their response to the slaughter of Russian
peacekeepers and citizens carrying Russian passports in South Ossetia by the western backed
sociopath Mikheil Saakashvili, then go ahead and call it an "invasion".
Crimeans who are overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, voted in a referendum to secede from the
illegitimate coup-installed Nazi regime in Kiev. There was no "invasion". By treaty agreement
Russia had 24K troops stationed on the peninsula to secure their Black Sea Fleet. How'd you
think that was going to go?
He's aiding Assad you say? Why WOULD'NT Russia defend a nation to which it has been formally
allied since the 1950's from US/Saudi/NATO backed crazed jihadists?
NATO is an armed alliance that should have died with the USSR and, contrary to the first Bush
administration's promise to Gorbachev not to move the alliance "one inch" toward Russia's
borders in exchange for their agreement not to oppose the reunification of Germany, encircled
the Russian Federation with NATO bases. And you have the nerve to call Putin an aggressor?
Mr. Mark
4 months ago (edited)
Simpson assumes Americans still feel threatened by Putin and the Russian Federation. In
fact, we have stopped believing the lies of most of our own journalists and politicians
because real data is being supplied by WikiLeaks and other honest news sources so we are more
afraid of our own government than those abroad. Putin is our ally, he will get along well with
Trump and I expect we will all benefit by this relationship built on mutual trust than the
lies we normally expect. Simpson looks the idiot here...assuming we will think he is strong.
The real strength here is Putin, his communication skills, articulate manner impress us.
I am a true patriot. I'm America first all the way. But we've been giving Russia the
short end of the stick since the end of WWII. Harry Truman started it with nuclear
blackmail after we bombed Japan. Even though (yes it's true folks) the Soviets are the
ones who really took the guts out of the Nazi war machine. We would have won anyway, but
Russia accelerated the process in a huge way. They also invaded Japan forcing the
emperors hand after we dropped the second atom bomb. During the Cuban missle crisis we
really didn't have a leg to stand on in negotions. We had tactical nukes in Siberia
armed and ready long before Russia put missiles in Cuba. I'm not a sympathizer, Stalin
was an oppressor of human rights, and I feel communism is fundamentally flawed. But
Putin is right, we've tried to force our ideas on the rest of the world and alienated
most of it through out the process. Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, Cuba, and Iran during
the cold war.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software
around the world, to preserve their spying access.
Frank Oak
3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots crimes
going viral
Nancy M
3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes
that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about
her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
John
3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards
in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.
"... In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes: ..."
"... At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating. ..."
"... As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur". ..."
There is a popular point of view in some of Russia's political circles, especially among those who
profess monarchist views and cling to a famous meme of 1913 Tsarist Russia development statistics,
that WW I was started by Germany to forestall Russia's industrial development which would inevitably
challenge Germany's plans on domination of Europe. A somewhat similar argument could be made for
the WW II, but, in general, preventive wars are nothing new in human history. While "preventive"
argument may or may not be a valid one regarding WW I, there is no doubt that it could be used, among
others, when explaining the origins of a war.
A classic example of such "preventive" war is, of course, US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the
mayhem which ensued there when US, as was stated then, "prevented" Saddam from obtaining Weapons
of Mass Destruction, that is nuclear weapons, which, of course, he never had and wasn't intent on
obtaining . It is becoming increasingly clear that "preventive war" has become a preferred instrument
in the hands of Washington establishment, be it Iraq, Libya or Syria.
But what about Russia, one may ask, or China. Are "preventive wars" against them possible? Taken
at face value the question may seem strange-both China, and especially Russia are nuclear armed states
which can defend themselves. They do have deterrents and that supposedly should stop any attempt
on any kind of war on them. This all is true but only so far. One may consider the current geopolitical
situation in which China has all but created a new alternative economic power pole , and in which
the US finds herself increasingly in the position of the still extremely important but second and,
eventually, even third place player in Eurasian economic development. The United States doesn't like
being in second and doesn't take such a reality kindly.
But for Washington, whose political discourse is based on American exceptionalism and foreign
policy now is defined completely in terms of military power, emergence of a "peer" military power
is absolutely unacceptable. While China is an economic giant and is now arguably the largest economy
in the world, she still has a long way to go until she becomes a true "peer" to the United States
militarily. This is not the case with Russia. It becomes also true when one begins to look at doctrinal
and technological developments both in the US and Russia. The contrast is startling, even if one
considers a very dubious US intelligence analysis on Russia .
Russia's military doctrine and posture are explicitly defensive. Power Projection in Russian strategic
considerations is secondary, if not tertiary, to the defense of Russia proper and her immediate geographic
vicinity which can roughly be defined as about 80-85% of territory of the former USSR. This is not
the case with the United States who is a consummate expeditionary power and fights wars not on
own territory, and whose population and political elites are not conditioned by continental warfare.
Arthur J. Alexander in his "
Decision Making In Soviet Weapons Procurement " came up with quantification of what he called
"classes of forces" (or constants) influencing aggregate defense expenditures for USSR. This quantification
remains virtually unchanged for modern day Russia. To quote Alexander, two of the most "heavy" constants
he mentions are: "History, culture and values–40-50 percent. International environment, threat
and internal capabilities–10-30 percent" . Taken by their maxima, 50+30=80%, we get the picture.
80% of Russia's military expenditures are dictated by real military threats, which were, time after
time over centuries, realized for Russia and resulted in the destruction and human losses on a scale
incomprehensible for people who write US military doctrines and national security strategies. This
is especially true for Neocon "strategists" who have a very vague understanding of the nature and
application of military power-expeditionary warfare simply does not provide a proper angle on the
issues of actual defense. The nation whose 20 th Century losses due to wars from WW I,
to Civil War to WW II number roughly in 40-45 million range, would certainly try to not repeat such
ordeals. Even famous Russophobe and falsifier, Richard Pipes, was forced to admit that:
Such figures are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. But clearly a country must define
"unacceptable damage" differently from the United States which has known no famines or purges,
and whose deaths from all the wars waged since 1775 are estimated at 650,000-fewer casualties
than Russia suffered in the 900-day siege of Leningrad in World War II alone. Such a country (Russia)
tends also to assess the rewards of defense in much more realistic terms.
In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological
pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help
to implement it. As Michael Lind writes:
The possibility of military defeat and invasion are usually left out of discussion .in the
United states and Britain. The United States, if one discounts Pearl Harbor has not suffered a
serious invasion from 1812; Britain, though it has been bombed from the air in the (20th century),
has been free from foreign invasion even longer .Elsewhere in the world, political elites cannot
as easily separate foreign policy and economics.
Russia lives under these pressures constantly and, in fact, Russians as ethnos were formed and
defined by warfare. Russia is also defined by her weapons and it is here where we may start looking
for one of the most important rationales for anti-Russian hysteria in Washington which have proceeded
unabated sincethe return of Crimea in 2014, in reality even earlier.
The Western analytical and expert community failed utterly in assessing Russia's both economic
and, as a consequence, military potential. The problem here is not with Russia, which offers unprecedented
access to all kinds of foreigners, from businessmen and tourists to political and intelligence (overt
and covert) professionals. The problem is with Western view of Russia which as late as three years
ago was completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities. That is the reality
not defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices.
It took a complete and embarrassing failure of the West's economic sanctions on Russia to recognize
that the actual size of Russia's economy is about that of Germany, if not larger, and that Russia
was defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing long
before she was forced to engage in the war in Georgia in 2008. Very few people realistically care
about Russia's Stock Market, the financial markets of Germany are on the order of magnitude larger,
but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can. Germany
doesn't have a space industry, Russia does. The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics
industry and her military-industrial complex which dwarfs that of any "economic" competitor Western
"economists" always try to compare Russia to, with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk,
not quality, only. Third or Second World economies do not produce such weapons as Borey-class strategic
missile submarines or SU-35 fighter jets, they also do not build space-stations and operate the only
global alternative to US GPS, GLONASS system.
Whether this lesson will be learned by the combined West is yet to be seen. So far, the learning
process has been slow for US crowd which cheered on US deindustrialization and invented a fairy tale
concept of post-industrial, that is non-productive, virtual economy.
The Russian economy is not without problems, far from it-it still tries to break with the "heritage"
of robbery and deformities of 1990s and still tries to find its way on a path different from destructive
ideology of Russia's "young reformers" who still dominate policy formulation, be it from the positions
of power or through such institutions as notorious High School of Economics.
Yet, it seems this economy which was "
left in tatters " or was an economy of a "
gas station masquerading as a country ", is the only other economy in the world which can produce
and does produce the whole spectrum of weapons ranging from small arms to state-of-the-art complex
weapon and signal processing systems. No other nation with the exception of the US and Russia, not
even China, can produce and procure a cutting edge military technology which has capabilities beyond
the reach of everyone else.
Here, the US establishment, also known as the Neocon interventionist cabal, it seems, has begun
to wake up to actual reality, not the fictitious one that the US can allegedly create for itself.
Such as the fact that Russia, in a planned and well executed manner, without any unnecessary fanfare,
launched a complete upgrade of her naval nuclear deterrent with the state of the art SSBNs of Borey-class
(Project 955 and 955A). Three submarines of this type are already afloat while other 5 are in a different
stages of completion and this is the program which most of US Russia "analysts" were laughing at
10 years ago. They are not laughing anymore.
Today it is US Navy which is in dire need for upgrade of its nuclear deterrent, with the youngest
of Ohio-class SSBN, SSBN-743 USS Louisiana, being 20 year old. The future replacement of venerable
Ohio-class SSBNs, a Columbia-class is slated to go into production in 2021 that is if the R&D
will go smoothly. But one has to consider a feature which became defining of US R&D and weapons procurement
practices-delays and astronomical costs of US weapons, which, despite constantly being declared "superior",
"unrivaled" and "best in the world" are not such at all, especially for the prices they are offered
both domestically and abroad. As in the case with above mentioned Columbia-class SSBN,
the GAO expects the cost of
the whole program to be slightly above 97 billion dollars and that means that the average cost
for each sub of this class will be around 8.1 billion dollars. That is much more than the cost
of the whole-8 advanced submarines-program of Russia's naval nuclear deterrent.
And this single example demonstrates well an abyss in fundamental approaches to the war between
US and Russia: not only do Russian weapons rival those made in US, they are much-much less expensive
and they provide Russia with this proverbial bang for a buck, also known in professional circles
which deal with strategy and operation's research as cost/effectiveness ratio. Here, United States
is simply no competition to Russia and the gap not only remains, it widens with ever-increasing speed.
As Colonel Daniel Davies admitted : " The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful
and dominant as many believe ." That brings us to a second issue, of doctrines, operational concepts
and weapons themselves.
A complete inability to see the evolution of Russia's Armed Forces is another failure which
not only irritated but continues to irritate US military-political establishment since it proved
them completely wrong. Economic "blindness" factored in here very strongly-it was inevitable
in a system that looks at the world through a grossly distorted Wall Street monetarist spyglass.
Many times it was pointed out that direct linear comparison, dollar-for-dollar, of military budgets
is wrong and does not reflect real military, in general, and combat, in particular, potentials in
the least.
While the US Navy was busy spending 420 million dollars per hull on its 26-ship fleet of Littoral
Combat Ships (LCS), Russian Navy spent two times less per unit on a frigates whose combat capabilities
dwarf those of any LCS in any aspect: ASW, Air Defense and Sensors, including the ability to launch
supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles from 600 kilometers and land-attack missiles from 2500.
The same goes to much smaller and even much cheaper missile corvettes of Buyan and Karakurt classes
which can engage any US Navy's targets, let alone something of LCS caliber.
Experiences with a technological embarrassment known as F-35 merely confirm the fact that US is
being tangled in a bizarre combination of unrealistic doctrinal views, unachievable technological
and operational requirements and, in general, a complete failure to follow Sun Tzu's popular dictums
of "Know Thy Enemy" and "Know Thy Self". On both counts the US policy makers and doctrine mongers
failed miserably.
As late as two years ago a number of US Russia's military "experts" declared that Russia's ground
forces return to division structure was merely "symbolic". Symbolic they were not, with Russia resurrecting
both divisions and armies as appropriate operational-tactical and operational-strategic units in
order for a large scale combined arms operations. While following closely the evolution of US forces
within the framework of initially much touted Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), Russia never
changed her focus on the large scale combined arms operations. This came as a nasty surprise on 08/08/2008
when the elements of the supposedly "backward" Russian 58 th Army demolished NATO and
Israel trained, and partially equipped, Saakashivili's Army in a matter of 96 hours. Nobody celebrated
this victory and Russian Army was subjected, somewhat justifiably, to scathing criticism from many
quarters. But it was clear already then that combined arms operations of large army units remain
a principle method of the war between peer-to-peer state actors. The issue then, in 2008, was that
US didn't consider Russia a peer and even near peer "status" was grudgingly afforded due to Russia's
nuclear arsenal.
Things changed dramatically after the coup in Kiev and junta unleashing a war in Donbass. Brigade
and Division size forces there engaged in a full blown combined arms warfare, including head to head
armor clashes, employment, especially for LDNR forces, of full C4ISR capabilities and Net-Centric
warfare principles. So much so that it created a cultural shock for US military's COIN crowd
, which got used to operate in the environment of total domination over its rag-tag lightly armed
guerilla formations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
And it was then, and later, in 2015, demonstrated by Russia's Syria campaign, that the realization
of an inability to defeat Russia conventionally began to dawn on many in D.C. establishment. Thus
the whole premise of last quarter century "Pax Americana"-alleged conventional military superiority
over any adversary-was blown out of the water. American military record of the last quarter century
is not impressive for a power which proclaimed herself to be a hyper-power and as having the most
powerful military in history. As US Marine Corps Captain Joshua Waddle bitterly admitted :
"Let us first begin with the fundamental underpinnings of this delusion: our measures of performance
and effectiveness in recent wars. It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept
the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military's
effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory
into operational and strategic success".
Delusion, of course, being the fact of US expecting a decisive tactical and technological superiority
on the battlefield. Overwhelming empirical evidence tells a completely different story:
United States military in future conflicts will have to deal, in case of conventional conflict
against near-peer, let alone peer, with adversary who will have C4ISR capability either approaching
that or on par with that of the US. This adversary will have the ability to counter US military
decision cycles (OODA loop) with equal frequency and will be able to produce better tactical, operational
and strategic decisions. US real and perceived advantage in electronic means of warfare (EW) will
be greatly reduced or completely suppressed by present and future EW means of adversary thus forcing
US forces fight under the conditions of partial or complete electronic blindness and with partially
or completely suppressed communications and computer networks. US will encounter combat technologies
not only on par but often better designed and used , from armor to artillery, to hyper-sonic
anti-shipping missiles, than US military ever encountered. Modern air-forces and complex advanced
air defense systems will make the main pillar of US military power-its Air Force-much less effective.
Last but not least, today the US military will have to deal with a grim reality of its staging
areas, rear supply facilities, lines of communications being the target of massive salvos of long-range
high subsonic, supersonic and hyper-sonic missiles . The US military has never encountered such
paradigm in its history. Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive
missile strike.
But above all, if to finally name this "peer", which is Russia, and that is who pre-occupies the
minds of former and current Pentagon's and National Security brass, in case of conventional conflict
Russians will be fighting in defense of their motherland. Here Russia has a track record without
equals in human history. Meanwhile, if the current military trends continue, and
there are no reasons for them to stop
, the window of opportunities for the Neocon cabal to attack Russia conventionally and unleash
a preventive war is closing really fast (if it ever existed). That is what drives to a large extent
an aggressive military rhetoric and plans, such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's doctrine
and war mongering.
By mid 2020s Russia's rearmament program will be largely complete, which will allow Russia's Armed
Forces to field and float a technology which will completely prevent NATO from exercising any illusions
about the outcome of any conventional war in Russia's geographic vicinity, including her littoral,
and that will mark the end of US designs on Eurasia by military means. It wouldn't matter how many
carrier battle groups US will be able to move to forward areas or how many submarines, or how many
brigades it will be able to deploy around Russia it will not be able to defeat Russia conventionally.
With that, especially when one considers China's growing military potential, comes the end of Pax-Bellum
Americana, the one we all hoped for this election cycle.
At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to
reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there
the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would
be devastating.
As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things
Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions
of grandeur".
Today, the United States in general, and her military in particular, still remain a premier geopolitical
force, but increasingly they will have to content with the fact that the short-lived era of self-proclaimed
superiority in every single facet of modern nation-states' activity is over, if it ever was the case
to start with. Will the US "Deep State" unleash a preventive war to prevent Russia from serving US
with the pink slip for its position as world's chaos-monger or will it be, rephrasing the magnificent
Corelli Barnett: " US Power had quietly vanished amid stupendous events of the 21
st Century, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion
of battle ". This is the most important question of the 21 st Century so far, but
knowing US deep state ignorance of Russia one can never discount its insanity and an acute case of
sour grapes.
Andrei Martyanov has extensive knowledge of naval issues, and has been published in US Naval Institute Proceedings . Using the handle "SmoothieX12," he has written over
130,000 words of comments at The Unz Review , overwhelmingly on Russian and military
matters.
Anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT
• 100 Words Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3%
and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
Intelligent Dasein , •
Website April 17,
2017 at 5:40 am GMT
• 400 Words I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's
Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with
Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding
the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump
of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged
world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as
well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
• Agree: Amanda , bluedog , Seamus Padraig •
anon , April 17, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
• 100 Words "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.
• Agree: Randal •
Art , April 17, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT
• 100 Words Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.
If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?
Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.
Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many
Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.
Peace - Art
•
animalogic , April 17, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
• 100 Words The US – with its NATO dogs contributing their yaps – has driven Russia & China
into an economic & strategic partnership. Such a foreign policy must rate in the top ten of historical
blunders. Essentially they have given a very helpful shove towards Eurasian unity - not yet, but
forseeable, perhaps probable.
Russia & China's continuing military advances are just one side of a coin: economic integration
& advance is the other.
If or when the US loses this struggle it need look no futher than classic Greek tragedy for the
first causes of its decline: HUBRIS. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT
Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death.
I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!
•
mp , April 17, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
• 100 Words It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile,
or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's
another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered,
gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere,
against a real army–and not some third world outpost. •
Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
• 200 Words This is a situation that should never have permitted to arise. The US Federal
Deficit is approaching $20 trillion, 2016′s Trade Deficit is $0.5 trillion and the Accumulated
Trade Deficit over the last 30 years about $10 trillion. The US is to all intents bankrupt, and
bankrupt states quickly lose their empires.
Of course, America's creditors – China, Japan etc – have rigged the financial sector so that America
is still able to afford their goods. Herein, lies the solution. The US dollar is a fiat currency
and will collapse sooner or later. It is in Russia and China's interests that they precipitate
such a collapse ASAP, even if they themselves suffer negative economic consequences.
Faced with an imploding economy, and a choice between minimum social welfare measures and a grotesquely
expansive military, there can only be one outcome for America. The Neocons will be defanged.
This form of economic warfare has got to be a lot safer and more effective in achieving its aims
than actual warfare. I sincerely hope that the Russians and Chinese have some such plan formulated.
The era of military confrontation should have been over with the end of the Soviet Union. The
Neocons have stolen the Peace, and helped themselves to the Peace Dividend. Reply More...
This Commenter Display All Comments
reiner Tor , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also
a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.
Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with
great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them – none? a little?
a lot? a whole salt mine?
•
LondonBob , April 17, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT
• 100 Words Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities,
interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating
over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional
imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous
to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline.
Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
•
Anatoly Karlin , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT
• 400 WordsNEW! Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time.
•
NoseytheDuke, April 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT
Having read many, many of SmoothieX12′s knowledgable comments and now this article, I would imagine
that his many critics have enough egg on their faces to have their eggs any way they want them,
except sunny side up of course.
Nobody should be surprised by the revelations here nor should they feel disheartened. It is
doubtful that Russia has any plans or even thoughts to ever invade or harm the US. The upside
could be that the Neocons and the AIPAC crowd might become so disempowered that they will be finally
held to account for their many crimes and that would be good for everyone.
AP , April 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and
with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Goods and services
in Russia are considerably less expensive than in the West (and this includes the cost of producing
fighter jets or rockets), so for such purposes GDP PPP is a better indicator than is nominal GDP.
In terms of GDP PPP, Russia is of course not on par with the United States but is considerably
higher than Mexico. It is in the same neighborhood as places such as Hungary.
Russia's overall GDP PPP places it slightly below Germany – 6th place in the world:
@anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. I agreed with the main thrust of
your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:
It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war
in 1917.
The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial
origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe
Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before
Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the
European powers to go for the big one.
It's just the nature of the beast.
Lewl42, April 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Russia is a middle
income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita.
But the US GDP is of an different structure. Compared it is overblown with pure financial sales
and "hedonistic adjustments". More is blown by the culture. In the US much more everyday things
relies on money. In case of case they are all worth nothing. Furthermore, if it comes to conflicts
than the whole US Infrastructure has to be "revalued", and i doubt that it can withheld some stress
tests.
If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke
No country that relies on oil ( Russia do not) has made substantial improvements. Normally
they are problem states where the problems made by oil are solved by money.
So from my point of view the opposite is true. Russia has made the big mistake to open itself
to the west and was bitten. Now they readjust (with a border to china). Thank's to the US Oligarchs
which thrown away that chance for they're primitive Neanderthal tribe thinking.
reiner Tor, Website April
17, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT
@mp It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a
killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when
"boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay
friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere,
against a real army--and not some third world outpost. Don't worry, when the going gets tough,
suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".
•
alexander, April 17, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
Thank you Mr Martyanov, for a highly informative article.
I am always amazed at the "euphemisms" of our "belligerent war" era, and how they affix themselves,
and have affixed themselves, to our mendacious and deceitful behavior.
Take the idea of a "surge", as was used during the Iraq disaster, as a substitute for the word
"escalation" because nobody was comfortable with "escalating the war" once the imminent WMD threat
had proven to be phony .so our belligerent elites substituted the word "surge" to ram through
funding for the escalation.
Or lets look at the "euphemisms" of "pre-emptive war" or "preventive war". Do they not function
as substitutes for what is , in reality, the greatest crime any nation on earth can commit "War
of Aggression"?
There are other areas too, where we need to take a long, hard look a this " parade of euphemisms"
which is constantly inserting itself into the hearts and minds of our citizens .
For example, lets take a look at the word "propaganda", which is a word that, for the most
part, stands on its own ,yet, for arguments sake, does it not function as a "euphemism",( in our
ongoing global belligerence) for FRAUD ?
As we think about these assorted "euphemistic realities" set upon us in our tragic age..we
understand the acute distinction between defining something as "war propaganda" versus "WAR FRAUD".
"War propaganda", however desultory a term, is understood as a legitimate tool within the toolbox
of belligerence whereas WAR FRAUD is implicitly understood as a CRIME..which is in need of punishment.
Have not our euphemistic manipulations , like "preemptive war", or "preventive war",overwhelmed
the integrity of our national discourse, and paved the way for heinous murderous behavior which
would normally not be tolerated ?,
Is not their primary purpose to insulate us from our own awareness of the CRIMES we have committed
, and will continue to commit ?.
What a blessing it will be for the whole wide world, once we end this " charade of euphemisms" and
start calling things what they truly are.
Erebus, April 17, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT
Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.
The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global
Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling
C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.
Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground
if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself
to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight
to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.
No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed.
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts
when that moment has passed.
reiner Tor, Website
April 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception
of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind
in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the
art is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has
made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In
robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly
demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years,
but not in 20-30 years time.
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved – all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
AP, April 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time. I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But –
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military
spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task.
I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent
AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
iffen, April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
This is an interesting and informative article.
Can you give us your opinion of the F-35 program and to a lesser extent the LCS program? I
have no doubt that we get good and reliable information in the US, but just in case, a different
perspective on whether the projected capabilities are actually being met by the weapons would
be nice to consider.
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 1:14 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time.
Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.
Thank you.
Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently
began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
Processing power in military applications is less dependent on 10 or 28 nm, than on mathematics
and algorithms. Both architectures are more than sufficient for the whole spectrum of military
tasks, be it signal processing or developing firing solutions.
I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent
AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
Apples and oranges. Producing a state-of-the-art nuclear sub is on the order of magnitude more
complex task than producing even a very good SSK. China now produces very good AIP SSKs of 039A
type, she still is not capable to produce a nuke with at least third generation characteristics.
Railguns, and associated naval EM systems
Absolutely useless, other than to impress journalists, in combat paradigm where hyper-sonic
missiles with ranges of 1000 kilometers begin to rule the day. I think 3M22 Zircon reaching Mach=8
this weekend on trials is by far more impressive and influential on the tactical and even political
level than any rail-gun. Zircon is a change in combat paradigm of such a scale that it is even
difficult to completely grasp it at this stage. I may elaborate on it in depth at some point of
time.
reiner Tor, • Website
April 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
@AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can"
– Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany
just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a
tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran.
Avery, April 17, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send
straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". { suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die .}
What happens IF straight white men refuse to go and die?
[Stunning Evidence that the Left Has Won its War on White Males]
{White males, in large numbers, are simply losing their will to live, and as a result, they
are dying so prematurely and in such large numbers that a startling demographic gap has emerged.
It is not just the "opioid epidemic" that is killing off white working class males, it is a spiritual
crisis, and Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have the numbers to sustain this conclusion.}
Carlton Meyer, • Website April
17, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Over the years, the
Pentagon encouraged Congress to move parts of national security spending out of its budget to
the extent that almost half is found outside the DOD. The USA really spends over a trillion dollars
a year. For example, nuclear weapons research, testing, procurement, and maintenance is found
in the Dept of Energy budget.
And as others have noted, GDP is a measure of activity, not prosperity. For example, mortgage
refinancing creates lots of GDP, but no real wealth. Hurricanes and arson are good for GDP too!
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 1:45 pm GMT
@Z-man Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death.
I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From
people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300
seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes
online, well–it is a different game altogether from there.
Randal , April 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT
An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many
good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both
in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.
mushroom, April 17, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT
When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious – which is
what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves. What happened
to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!
So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c If you want to enjoy happy days don't
mess with the bear!
5371, April 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Stupid beyond belief.
Countries can't go broke doing something, if they control the natural and human resources they
need to accomplish it. In addition, you apparently did not read Smoothie's explanation of why
just comparing the sums spent is silly. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
@Randal I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't
agree with the last sentence:
It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war
in 1917.
The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial
origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe
Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before
Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the
European powers to go for the big one.
It's just the nature of the beast. Yes but up until 1898 – the war against Spain – the US actually
got something out of its wars. Wars with countries BEYOND the Americas have gained nothing for
America. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Turkey's military
has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer.
•
Agent76 , April 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT
• 100 Words March 19, 2017 Putin Prepares For Invasion of Europe With Massive Cuts to Military
Spending
Russia announces "deepest defense budget cuts since 1990s". Putin must be stopped before it's
too late. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace
and prosperity. Long gone are the days of wasteful military expenditures and no-bid contracts
to build airplanes and aircraft carriers that neither fly nor float.
Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose
Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria
and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ANOSPH , April 17, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. Excellent article. I look forward to many
more from you.
Re: the S400, for those interested, TASS developed an excellent and visually appealing overview
on the system in Russian:
Just keep scrolling down.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. The real point is
that Russia and Turkey are almost neighbors while N.K. is about 8,000 miles from the US. In other
words the US could ignore Korea. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
• 100 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
Neither France nor Germany could have stayed out once Russia was in, but then both of them had
given their respective allies every encouragement to bring matters to a head. The French had a
great increase in self-confidence just in the last two or three years. You are right that Serbia
didn't even decide to reject the ultimatum until they heard Russia was already going ahead with
pre-mobilisation. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Hopefully at least some of those
straight white males will know better. Hopefully.
Then again people often act contrary to their best interests.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hunsdon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
Thank you, sir. Great article. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 3:02 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree
with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly
Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many
of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension–look no further than Mosul which is still, after
6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In
general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition.
•
anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
• 200 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys
are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would
never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia
and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would
have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued
his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and
his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan.
That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned
his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid
man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. •
TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
• 300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and
waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is
nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and
the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term
not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every
level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading
up college students with massive unpayable debt so that university administrators can get paid
like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient
as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial
accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible. To make more
money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become
so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right
people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans
were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse , April 17, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
@Art Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.
If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?
Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.
Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many
Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.
Peace --- Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear
of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. •
Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
• 200 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
Japan was certainly the greatest beneficiary of the war in economic terms. Their exports ended
up tripling to fuel the demand of the wartime European economies and especially to fill in the
gap for consumer goods in the East Asian markets whose normal suppliers had redirected their production
for the war effort. Shipbuilding in Japan also boomed as a result of wartime demands. Pre-WWI
Japan was still importing most of its major warships from Britain; post-WWI Japan was building
them all on its own.
Romania gained a lot in territory but its doubtful whether these gains were worth it in terms
of the lives they cost.
The United States certainly gained in terms of geopolitical power, but that was largely due
to the same wartime economic circumstances that had benefited Japan, with the addition of supplanting
Britain as the world's leading financial power. These gains, however, would have been won whether
or not we'd sent 100,000 of our own to die in France, so their lives ultimately amounted to little
more than a sacrifice to Woodrow Wilson's egomaniacal dreams of reshaping the world order into
a utopia.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 , April 17, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article
here.
Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles
.
* GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket
capitalizations.
* The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
* The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability
to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the
Baltics).
* The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger
who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight
the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come
to fruition.
* You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs.
More skeptical about:
* " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia
can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending),
Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's
second most complex economy
would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs
(it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
* "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of
US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in
semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art
is now 10nm).
* It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made
that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics,
Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated.
To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30
years time. WW1, unlike Barbarossa, didn't start with a German attack on Russia, although in each
case the argument was made by some (stronger in retrospective for 1941 than 1914) that Russia
would be too strong to take on in a couple of years. The difference is that a number of factors
– the ideological conflict, the success of "blitzkrieg", the weak Soviet performance at the start
of the Finnish war – created an illusory hope of easy victory for the Germans along with the fear
of later defeat. That tipped the balance in favour of attack.
As I understand it, the claimed regular progress to smaller and smaller chip feature sizes has
for some time been a matter of marketing, not reality. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DannyMarcus , April 17, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus
among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China,
which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. •
Randal , April 17, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
• 200 Words @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses.
But -
You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance
in fighting Arabs
Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side
has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real
test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
"but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can"
– Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany
just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending,
I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am
sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones)
and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
Russia would crush Turkey very quickly in a straight one on one conflict, though it would struggle
to physically occupy it. The only reason Turkey would have any capability to resist at all is
that Turkey has full US backing, both in terms of the NATO alliance and in terms of the military
systems and capabilities it fields. Russia's capabilities, in contrast, are wholly indigenous.
Individually, the two countries are not remotely in the same class, militarily.
Likewise for the US versus Iran or NK. The problem would likely not be in defeating the military
forces themselves, but in occupying and holding ground longer term, and dealing with problems
caused by horizontal escalation.
These are issues not really of military capabilities, but rather of national political will
to apply those capabilities ruthlessly and to inflict and to take the losses required for total
victory.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
gwynedd1 , April 17, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT
The US is not worried about Russia. They were worried about the EU and Russia with economic
links to China. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT
• 200 Words @5371 Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the
reputation corresponds with reality any longer. Their recent mishaps in Syria certainly cast some
doubts on their formidable reputation. However I would hesitate to go so far as to say that Turkey
has become a paper tiger.
I don't know if there's a more professional terminology for this, but I think there is a difference
between what you might call weakness the surface level and weakness at the core.
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
America in the years before it became a permanently mobilized state was also prone to this
sort of happening in the initial stages of its wars – see the rout at Kasserine Pass in World
War II or the initial defeats it suffered to the North Koreans in 1950. The British made "our
Italians" jokes after Kasserine, but these had a short shelf life as US performance picked up
very quickly afterwards.
The state of the Turkish military right now seems more likely to be one of surface-level weakness
(which would be tempered by exposure to battle) than of core-level weakness (which would be exacerbated
by it).
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/this-cold-war-is-even-crazier-than-the-last/19689#.WPTiK9QrK4Q
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Astuteobservor II , April 17, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
excellent first article on unz. looking forward to more. Reply More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT
• 100 Words A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding
of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
• Agree: Kiza •
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
• 100 Words
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring
who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
from book: Fighting in Hell – German Ordeal on Eastern Front
•
reiner Tor , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Ondrej
The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one
which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring
who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
from book: Fighting in Hell - German Ordeal on Eastern Front
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their
experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf
in history.
When was it?
•
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical
poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the
Russian stock market.
Try to make following thought experiment, what would happen with SP100 financial valuation
of shares GN a Lockheed in case of conflict and what would be impact on with Suchoi and MIG shares
and how this would impact real economy instead of economics?
Luckily there is still plenty of people in Russian companies who were educated in economy instead
of economics..
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
From seeing some discussions in Russian TV channels, I can say people in Russia are in fact
disgusted with part of government still trying to apply Western type of economics..
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
@reiner Tor
Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their
experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf
in history.
When was it? according to book 4. March 1943
Mannerheim in front of German General as reaction to some public speech of H. Göring before.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition. Very good article and David Stockman says the same
thing on our GDP that its do to very creative accounting much like our BLS report . Reply
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
• 600 Words Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said – I do not agree
with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and
US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as
an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level – I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 6:19 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the
typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't.
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of
real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
Mind you–this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever–make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about 10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
•
Jonathan Revusky , •
Website April
17, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
• 200 Words I think this is a good article. I say "I think so" because the truth of the matter
is that I lack the detailed domain knowledge to be able to evaluate it very well.
The comment I would make about it (which is not a critique of the article per se ) is
that Russia (or the USSR speaking more precisely) did suffer a horrendous defeat from which it
is still recovering - I mean, in the Cold War. However, that defeat was not military in nature.
It was entirely political/psychological/ideological. (N.B. The complete neocon/zionist takeover
of the U.S. and other Western countries also occurred without firing a shot, no?)
Anyway, no grand battles occurred like Stalingrad or Kursk, yet somehow the USSR was as defeated
a nation in the 1990′s as Germany was in 1945! In my view, the AngloZionists would be more interested
in repeating that feat, than actually getting into a real hot war. That, also, would be their
template for defeating China, as opposed to getting into some land war in Asia.
I assume the above, because I have the tendency to think they are crazy, but not that
crazy. But that said, I don't know for sure either. Maybe they really are that crazy and
I just don't want to believe it. After all, it's really terrifying to think they are insane on
that level.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
carlos22 , April 17, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
• 100 Words Russia is in the position to be king maker out of China & US.
Think about it Russia collapses & disintergrates, Siberia goes to China, which with all this
land mass, energy reserves and population overtakes the US to become leading superpower. Ask yourself
is that what the US wants?
Or
China betrays Russia, Russia then goes on to be US bitch, allows US missile defence to encircle
China with US bases. China looses a key friend at the UN, when the SHTF in Tibet, Tywan or Hong
Kong China finds its self alone. Is that what China wants?
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I
do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and
US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as
an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia
can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
Rules –
1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
2. Go fast, finish University in 22 – go to production and learn from olders
3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)
This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.
Problem with many current – not only military products, that their designers often do not have
idea how they are used..
You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it
is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-)
•
Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
• 300 Words @reiner Tor
The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.
Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was
not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar
terrorists), but then they changed their minds.
In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've
easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none
had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.
You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial
knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British
schools.
The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could
comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this
has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through
Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia
actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria
in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked
by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war
started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans,
but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to
remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory
and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary
to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And
so on.
Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in
Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn
of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody
was just dragged into WW1.
You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin
with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's
deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire.
It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs
for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.
•
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT
@Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of
it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's
points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.
But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines
and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends.
Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody
except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they
don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems
will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.
If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying
basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect,
measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:
Share of world gdp, ppp:
US
2020 14.878%
2015 15.809%
2010 16.846%
2000 20.76%
China
2020 19.351%
2015 17.082%
2010 13.822%
2000 7.389%
Russia
2020 2.836%
2015 3.275%
2010 3.641%
2000 3.294%
Source IMF per economywatch.com
Population (2017):
China: 1,388,232,693
US: 326,474,013
Russia: 143,375,006
These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are
concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's
military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all
but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative
to all rivals, for decades to come.
To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its
rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had
around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and
Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the
British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in
the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic
strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).
The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp
from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so
it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely
have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that
might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might
be different.
The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in
the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities. Randal,
what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things
that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised
real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really
is. •
AP , April 17, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Great article. Thanks. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last
year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal
points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures "Russia is a middle
income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very
funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only
count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count
net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism
logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.
"If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on
the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia,
nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru
the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal
spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities"
which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and
rhetoric taught in the western universities.
•
Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anonymouse You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many
years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal
safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean – it is crucial.
Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.
The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.
Congress must stop this – but they cannot because Jews control them also.
Peace - Art
p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:15 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @AP
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:
Faced with the choice between most expensive Tesla and new F-150 truck for free–I would choose
Tesla, sell it back to dealership or would find some moron from Redmond/Kirkland area and sell
Tesla to him and then would go buy F-150 and would use the rest of the money for other useful
purposes, such as donating to animal shelter or will help some family in need. I certainly would
make sure that I have the access to a bottle or two of really good bourbon to celebrate my new
F-150. I wish, though, that Subaru made trucks.
• Agree: AP Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Wally , April 17, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
• 100 Words I seriously doubt the author's statement:
Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet
Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet
fighter?
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Laughable.
Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.
•
Diversity Heretic , April 17, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
@anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..
Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military
threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military
and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political
establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson
who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. The Spanish-American War was completely
unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course
with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto
Rico. •
Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in
Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy
military adventures in North Korea.
Too late – Trump is sending in two more carrier groups.
US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carriers Toward Korean Peninsula: Yonhap
According to a report by South Korea's primary news outlet, Yonhap, the Pentagon has directed
a total of three US aircraft carriers toward the Korean Peninsula, citing a South Korean government
source.
This is insane – another preventive war like Iraq – but on China and Russia's doorstep.
Congress must stop this!
Peace - Art
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:35 pm GMT
• 400 WordsNEW! @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said
- I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and
US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as
an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military
has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point,
elaborate on it–there are some serious nuances.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies
which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus
it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages
in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put
it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers
are copy artists, China being the master copier.
Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control
(management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example,
it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example,
Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s
are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results
in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full
Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat?
Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but,
say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia
can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate
some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these
wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this
way–viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may
create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know.
•
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:36 pm GMT
NEW! @Ondrej
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
Rules -
1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
2. Go fast, finish University in 22 - go to production and learn from olders
3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)
This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.
Problem with many current - not only military products, that their designers often do not have
idea how they are used..
You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it
is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-) Some very good points you made. •
Sam Shama , April 17, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT
• 400 Words @Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition.
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely
from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my,
now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts"
know what they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
•
AtomAnt , April 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
@inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding
of the economic and financial realities.
No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian
stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian
financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising,
as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others
don't. That's just bankster propaganda. In truth, anything past 5% (generously) for the financial
sector is just parasitism. The US S&P 500 hovers around 30% financial sector. That's just elites
extracting resources from productive people. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonHUN , April 17, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus
among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy,
the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union
collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not
by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many
of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that
the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90′s according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
•
Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident. The financialisation of the economy has been a disaster in most Western countries, especially
for manufacturing companies. I had personal dealings with Pilkingtons, a World-leading British
glass company. At the first opportunity, the Banks and other corporate investors sold it to a
Japanese competitor. Pilkingtons is now a branch operation and has lost its research base.
Mr Putin seems to realise the importance of indigenous manufacturing industry- and not only for
defence- related purposes. So the capitalisation of such companies has been treated with great
caution, e g Gazprom. I could be wrong, of course.
So I must ask if you think Mr Putin has an Advanced Manufacturing Strategy in place, like Eamonn
Fingleton sees in Japan, Korea, Germany etc. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , •
Website April 17, 2017
at 8:52 pm GMT
• 200 WordsNEW! @Wally I seriously doubt the author's statement:
Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet ...
Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Laughable.
Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;)
•
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT
• 100 Words ,
There is wisdom to the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Your WW1 rant is
lacking in accurate facts and the actual facts that you refer to are misapplied subsequently your
logic is flawed and you find yourself in the oft quoted IBM construct of GIGO.
The genesis and the triggers for the eruption of WW1 are broad and complex and could generally
be put in the context of the colloquial term " a perfect storm". Your Slavic tinted glasses illuminate
only a tip of the tip of the iceberg as it were. I state this in the spirit of constructive criticism.
Cheers-
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov Some very good points you made. Having recent experience
in teaching in former socialist country and remembering and comparing with past I must say
It is quite painful to watch horrors of destruction of once functional educational system of
your own country which is trying to mimic current trends in western education.
I guess in Russia, given by typical Slavic tendency to extremes, is even more horrible. But
it looks like they do get it and they have still chance revert this trend.
First step is always to recognize problem, which is in my opinion given by public discussions
such as
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
Hmm first we would have to rebuild our manufacturing sector seeing most of our goods including
military are outsourced out, and I question the raw economics endowment what ever they are, and
then you have to retrain the workers for the old class is gone and the new isn't all that inclined
to work, and who would want to invest in a hallowed out economy, trillions in debt more trillions
in future liabilities trillions in derivitives little to no natural resources left military projects
milked to the bone months years overdue I'm afraid your caught in the light on the hill we are
exceptional bit but I presume that's to be expected.. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
@DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US
war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related
comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. If these countries really wanted to stop the USA, why not make
the American troops leave their countries? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Corvinus , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security.
The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer
the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. "The Spanish-American War
was completely unnecessary for U.S. security."
At the time, yes. In the long run, no.
"The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan "
Imperialistic ambitions in the Pacific by the U.S. and Japan put our nations on a path to fight.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
colm , April 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among
America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
Those who fought for the Entente in the Great War fought for the sake of the Third World.
Veterans Day should be abolished immediately. Memorial Day is enough.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for
U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and
even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. Yes
of course, you are right. The 1898 war with Spain was 100% a war of choice for America. Without
it, it was certainly possible war with Japan could have been avoided. Also agree that Puerto Rico
has proven to be utterly worthless to America. Should be given its independence ASAP. Reply
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. Eu, japan, taiwaneses, south koreans Their governements are
all puppets, whores of washington, the people doesnt matter, we (I am european) have no voice-
All westerns politics are the same whores. Countrys and people have no value. Only globalists
are going for bussines. Rusia is the great premium: The major land in the world- Reply More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
• 300 Words @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
Cheers-
•
The Alarmist , April 17, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Erebus Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.
The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global
Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling
C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.
Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground
if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself
to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight
to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed
at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived,
the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of
the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the
subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.
No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed.
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts
when that moment has passed.
"The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking
about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate can one seriously believe the US would not repond
with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear?
•
Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:54 pm GMT
My WW1 post was for Kiza. Somehow that got scrubbed Reply More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)
Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:
a) Military Complex (waste of money)
b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice – but can live without it)
e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China
anyway)
h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)
To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in
form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for
Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..
•
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
• 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident. You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps – all that shows is
that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot.
•
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. Well, it shouldn't be that complicated because
it has to be used rapidly. Hopefully it is easy for the user to operate it.
Thanks for the reply. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Ondrej
There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)
Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:
a) Military Complex (waste of money)
b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice - but can live without it)
e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China
anyway)
h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)
To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in
form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for
Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..
You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man •
Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT
• 300 Words Any military conflict between Russia and US is bound to degenerate into nuclear
war. That's because only degenerates can plan such event and even try to predict "survivability"
of such war. I believe only recently US funded a study to explore the outcome of such conflict.
You don't have to be military genius to realize that the odds are in Russia's favor.
How so? Simple. More than half of US population lives in 30 major cities. Russia's population
is much more dispersed. I think I read somewhere that during the cold war US had enough nukes
to destroy every USSR city of 10 000 and more inhabitants. Still, the Russians can inflict far
more casualties targeting far fewer cities than US can.
For those who think that western weapons are superior because they are more complicated – perfection
is always simple.
One of the most symptomatic examples of what's wrong with American military technology is F35.
At the end of the cold war the feeling of omnipotence has spread into their military technology.
F35 was supposed to do the job of what previously used to be done by several different planes.
It was supposed to be a ground support, vertical takeoff, interceptor, aircraft carrier based,
bomber, air superiority fighter plane.
While they were at it, why they didn't include in their specifications ability to fly to the
moon, be used as a cargo plane, awacs, fuel refueling tanker and passenger plane. When something
is designed to be universally good at different tasks it usually ends not being particularly good
at any of them.
Congratulations on your first article Andrei, keep up the good work.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant?
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia
with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that
makes US GDP larger than it really is.
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
You say it as though it's a bad thing.
•
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT
@Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear
of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.
Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean - it is crucial.
Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.
The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.
Congress must stop this - but they cannot because Jews control them also.
Peace --- Art
p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!
Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when
we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood
pressure up! •
Today,s Thought , April 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT
[ ] • 3,200 WORDS • 93 COMMENTS • REPLY [ ]
Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) This reminds me of the line from 'Ice Station
Zebra' by the Patrick McGoohan played character 'David Jones of MI6′, "The Russians put our (Brits)
camera made by *our* German scientists and your (US) film made by *your* German scientists into
their satellite made by *their* German scientists." LOL! Exaggeration of course but funny and
somewhat true. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 10:53 pm GMT
• 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of
possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and
the related comments.
Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly
resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions
for hegemony well beyond its shores?
I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present
subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before
any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing
the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American
adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly
to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. There are a lot of nations wanting wars between USA, Russia
and China, from top of the list is Japan, India, UK, They believe they will be the next global
hegemons standing on the ashes of USA, Russia and China.
Taiwanese are mentally colonized Japanese wannabes, they will be happy just returning to the
Japanese colony status.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial
US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
You say it as though it's a bad thing. No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view
currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in
military terms.
I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes
and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example
and Facebook and others are another. •
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
• 100 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors)
need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back
then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America
is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third
world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now
they are probably happy that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
"still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop
at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ? You should know fake news
is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. •
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
• 200 Words good post smooty. And good coments also.I have three issues I am thinking some
time ago. First: The soviet Union not colapsed, Gorbachev vas not a moron or a traitor. It was
50 years chess-game- The west is in turmoil already. Gorbachev did not do nothing without the
approbation of the hundreds of specialists .The same with Trump, as USA has about more than 5
milions of people working in intel or something about. Second misread: Usa did not lost the war
in Irak or Afganistan., as is said by journalists. Bush (W) said it in clair: I´ll bring the caos
to irak, to stoneage.
In Afganistan they are for 16 years for run the caos meantime. If they left , te country could
go normaly, They cant afford this. Is for future desestabilization of central asia. Three: In
the future war, you can see that the europeens are too sweet for go to war against Russia (Don´t
talk about the gays, trans and woman of de USA Army) : What about theese 2 milions of refugees
(arabs mens in militar age, all men?) All in Germany. This is not an Army for go to fight with
russia? Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin , • Website
April 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable
consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton,
that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely
standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable
outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently
enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's
economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just
barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an
acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets
to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the
entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as
merely a means to this end.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".
US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality"
That did not happen during the Korean War and Vietnam War. The straight white men stayed behind
and played gook hockey games.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
If anyone is interested in the perverse incentives in place in the US military development
system, which result in such spectacular failures and misallocation of resources, you could read
this:
martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
• 100 Words The westerns politics, that works against their own people (starting with Merkel),
and are absolute whores or the globalists of washington and elsewere .. (city of London, Rotschilds,
Jews,Vatican, , etc) Have learned the trick of the proxys, as they are now in Siria. And conciousness
that the european people are against else war, (and dont talk about the gay-trans-woman army of
the EEUU) The criminals europeans politics are getting milions of future proxy warriors from muslim
countrys. Their job will be the war we are not going. They, the "refugees" will get money, drugs,
guns, slave women, alcohol, and will go to war against rusia, and in europe inf they are said.
cheers.
Ahh!.. They give him the blue pill, also, (Are not than macho men?) Reply More... This
Commenter Display All Comments
Wally , April 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Germany did the heavy lifting.
Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly
British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for
the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved
in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space
to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.
After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
Actually:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka
Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder,
so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget
about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for
you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed
technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with
the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about
such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude
than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) You really need to know what you are talking
about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
About "Lyulka"?
" In 1945-47 he designed the first Soviet jet engine ".
Hoisted by your own petard.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zzz , April 17, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT
@Kiza You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly
superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in
US or British schools.
The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could
comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this
has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through
Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia
actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria
in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked
by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war
started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans,
but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to
remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory
and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary
to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And
so on.
Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in
Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn
of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody
was just dragged into WW1.
You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin
with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's
deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire.
It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs
for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.
Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold
to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution
Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
Are the same people.
•
inertial , April 17, 2017 at 11:47 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed.
Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes
and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example
and Facebook and others are another. I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot
more of those non-military components.
Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution
to GDP is minuscule.
•
DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT
• 100 Words One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's
insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their
submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.
The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations,
not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the
world.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how
modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of
modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.
Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to
the bottom.
•
Sergey Krieger , April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
• 100 Words @inertial I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of
those non-military components.
Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution
to GDP is minuscule. For this I believe nationalization of what was "privatized" in 90′s is needed
and new industrialization drive to become more self sufficient and less dependent upon outsiders.
Finances also is a matter of concern. Russia has very good experience in how to do it. Political
power will is needed though. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Mark Chapman , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
• 200 Words Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget
dollars – a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less
than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely
to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development,
but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.
An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be
rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the
top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems
often are unnecessarily complex – sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers – and the fiasco
of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand
on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard
of pork-barreling and design changes.
As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly
the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with – in this instance
– China's missile corvettes.
Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty
phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.
•
Avery , April 18, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people
who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem
almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online,
well--it is a different game altogether from there. {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind
boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
•
AtomAnt , April 18, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
• 200 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors)
need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back
then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America
is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third
world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now
they are probably happy that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
"Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"
Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft
carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing
3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A
Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central
bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They
insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia
is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general
said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector
wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin.
• Agree: Kiza •
wayfarer , April 18, 2017 at 12:32 am GMT
SAR (search and rescue) versus SAD (search and destroy)
"Disaster of the Kursk"
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
• 200 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its
back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously
plotting to undermine it.
The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in
"loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared
as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.
No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure
in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has
accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of
the Neocon Israel Firsters.
You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for
the American people, right? What a tosser!
•
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT
@anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia
as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the
Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading
but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships.
Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy
that the old days are back.
On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the
"job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in
Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc.
Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not
nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.
Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close
since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to
challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop
of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.
Did you skip the article and go straight to comments? Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT
• 100 Words @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy
to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land,
that's when I get my blood pressure up! What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they
need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded
by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to
interfere with NK? •
Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT
• 200 Words @The Alarmist
"The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs
aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being
revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with
none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure.
If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about
massive NATO reponse as being appropriate ... can one seriously believe the US would not repond
with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear? I understand that there
would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic
instincts when that moment has passed.
America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's
death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest
known.
The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia
would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several
generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know
well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW,
other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every
reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.
Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear
attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would
be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to
keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them.
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:38 am GMT
• 100 Words @Zzz
Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to
foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution
Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
Are the same people. I thought I explained that it is the Russian liberals who picked up the Western
view of who to blame for WW1, just like they picked up everything else from their Western role
models. The Russian nationalists do not blame the Serbs "for dragging them into WW1″ because this
is principally a Western idea of how to push discord among Slavic relatives, not that it even
matters that it is completely untrue. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT
@Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission.
It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I
get my blood pressure up! You are stupid, are you not? •
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
• 100 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
Well Scuds were strange beasts. Saddam's Scuds did not have regular ballistic trajectories, probably
because they were old and falling apart during flight. Thus, their trajectories became unintentionally
unpredictable/random. I agree that the Raytheon's shootdown rate was a boldface lie which professor
Postol exposed. But randomised trajectory is the reason why the shootdown rate was so low.
The Russian MIRV ICBM Bullawa uses exactly the same approach of randomising trajectory of each
vehicle intentionally, small but quick completely random maneuvers, which makes it virtually impossible
to shootdown. The US would have to place supercooled computers on its interceptors to destroy
those babies. Therefore, another relatively cheap but highly effective countermeasure to US ABMD,
a beautiful response.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT
• 200 Words @Joe Wong "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country,
in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national
debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe
in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita,
a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not
due, living in a world detached from reality.
"If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on
the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia,
nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru
the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal
spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities"
which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and
rhetoric taught in the western universities.
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
• 100 Words OT, here is some education about North Korea for the stupid people and those who
are not stupid but lack information. This is truly worth a read, it will open your eyes. Particularly
read the comments, and especially the three comments by "b", the zine owner:
The reality about North Korea is that the South Korean US puppets apply the same technique
on NK defectors that the British US puppets apply on Russian "KGB defectors". These poor defecting
souls found themselves in a desperate situation in their new country to which they were attracted
by stories of street paved in gold. Thus even just for food they have to invent more and more
outrageous stories to feed the propaganda machines of their South Korean/British hosts.
This is how Kim Jong Un threw his uncle to the 120 starving dogs and how Putin blew up some
Russian apartments in Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk, defector's honor!
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Mark Chapman , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 2:27 am GMT
• 200 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}
Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g.
U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable
conditions of real war.
To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient
Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which
Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate
of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.
Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s
too, unofficially).
In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA
and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western
jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting
test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target
and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry.
•
Carlton Meyer , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT
@DanC One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence
on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine
fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.
The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations,
not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the
world.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how
modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of
modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.
Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to
the bottom. If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete
against a modern navy:
If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT
• 300 Words @Sam Shama
Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about,
Hey Smoothie,
Loved this informative piece.
On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe
the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.
I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep
science & mathematics bench.
Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive
role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in
the department of raw economic endowments.
China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination
of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the
last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities
not far behind many western European states.
The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without
breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste,
which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient
7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their
entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued
there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.
The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still
hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly
friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature
than besting each other on wartime toys.
It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things
around very quickly.
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has
been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under
the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health
budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of
the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then
probably around 4.5%.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump
is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost
collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed
buddies.
Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC
waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who
oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents
can only pretend.
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning
to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the
German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then
thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.
Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you
think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has
not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point,
elaborate on it--there are some serious nuances.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it
lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages
in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put
it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers
are copy artists, China being the master copier.
Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control
(management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example,
it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example,
Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s
are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results
in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full
Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat?
Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but,
say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate
some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these
wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this
way--viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may
create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know. Ok.
so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts
and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than
based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no
MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly
respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system
(for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported
by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry
(again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers
from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from
building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively
replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important
ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates
and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
•
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT
• 200 Words @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic
conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when
it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where
the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch
site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black'
release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. Very good and relevant explanation. I
would only add that what Russia has in Syria and what Syria has in Syria are not IADS then stand-alone
radars and missiles. What Russia has over Russia is IADS, especially with the new S500 (Russian
ABMD). The Russians do not develop separate systems for air-defence and missile-defence, in Russia
it is all one integrated multi-sensor system. What is completely unknown is the effectiveness
of the Western stealth techniques and jammers against the Russian IADS over Russia. What if, what
the Western airforces call the blue line, the entry space which allows you to destroy the airdefense
before being detected and destroyed, keeps changing, becomes unpredictable or disappears altogether.
What if you cannot overwhelm the airdefense with a barrage of 59 Tomahawks as in Syria, because
you would need to fire several hundred or even thousand missiles simultaneously?
If Russia implements IADS over Syria, which may be what was announced after the US cruise missile
attack, then the "blue line" for US and Israeli jets and missiles may disappear.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Bayan , April 18, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT
• 100 Words America and Russia will not go for a direct war.
The reason is simple: one is crazy the other is nuts. When crazy meets nuts sanity of both
is restored. They 'll go for a drink and head home.
I sort of drove this conclusion from a Russian poem I read years ago.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
• 200 Words @Mark Chapman Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology
to use up budget dollars - a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency
by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget
is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun
development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.
An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be
rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the
top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems
often are unnecessarily complex - sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers - and the fiasco
of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand
on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard
of pork-barreling and design changes.
As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly
the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with - in this instance
- China's missile corvettes.
Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty
phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.
Mark, sorry but I have to disagree on the F-35 project. You are right that
any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of
pork-barreling and design changes
But it appears that even that original concept was a pie in the sky sold to the government
by a ruthless military almost-monopolistic corporation.
Firstly, the concept was unrealistic, then also the concept was too ambitious in the wrong
direction.
Unrealistic: to create one frame for different airforce roles with very different requirements
I describe as similar to creating a tank which can race on the ground, fly and submerge .
I wonder why this has never been done successfully before. But this is what LM promised to USAF
and on paper it looked fantastic and when greased with a few corrupt bucks the concept won the
decision day. The same frame and 70% of shared components between all versions, ha!
Too ambitious: instead of focusing on the firepower and maneuverability, it focused on stealth
which is relatively easily defeated with multi-sensor IADS. The designers created the best
stealth possible but at the expense of the principal plane performance: the firepower and maneuverability.
LM claims that F-35 is completely new technology and suffers from birthing pains. Although
true, this is not the crux of the problem. The whole design is back-to-the-drawing-board level
of disaster. Even US & Allies cannot afford a trillion dollars stuff-up and a decade of time lost.
In essence, the F-35 is again a good weapon only against the thirld-world opponents who cannot
defeat stealth.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
2stateshmoostate , April 18, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT
• 200 Words I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the
Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong. •
Joe Franklin , April 18, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT
• 300 Words @mushroom When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's
blatantly obvious - which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's
hidden caves.
What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of
this reality!
So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c...
If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear! The USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) is a
4th generation guided missile destroyer whose key weapons are Tomahawk cruise missiles with a
range of up to 2,500 kilometers, and capable of carrying nuclear explosives. This ship carries
56 Tomahawk missiles in standard mode, and 96 missiles in attack mode.
The US destroyer is equipped with the most recent Aegis Combat System. It is an integrated
naval weapons systems which can link together the missile defense systems of all vessels embedded
within the same network, so as to ensure the detection, tracking and destruction of hundreds of
targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with 4 large radars, whose
power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than fifty anti-aircraft
missiles of various types.
Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles
but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya
Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny .
As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars,
control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer . In other
words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up – or about to be – with the defense systems
installed on NATO's most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote
control.
The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left
literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft – unarmed
– repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.
After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.
Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread
reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial
waters again.
According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved
from active service.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu , April 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT
• 400 Words The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.
How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take
to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this
job?
How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?
How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?
What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly
safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.
And now this:
Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular
500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?
The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies
take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must
take this into account.
Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its
power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets
to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive.
This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey
AF that has over 200 F-16.
I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer
Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign
troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup
d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian
hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar
with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was
the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature
there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State.
There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and
apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.
I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer.
•
pogohere , • Website
April 18, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT
• 300 Words @Erebus
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf What international
treaties has the Russian Central Bank entered into, if any?
Re: "The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring."
Yours is an odd way of interpreting this provision of the Russian Constitution:
The Constitution of the Russian Federation
Article 75 (Chapter 3)
1. The monetary unit in the Russian Federation shall be the rouble. Money issue shall be
carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Introduction and issue
of other currencies in Russia shall not be allowed.
2. The protection and ensuring the stability of the rouble shall be the major task of the Central
Bank of the Russian Federation, which it shall fulfil independently of the other bodies
of state authority.
3. The system of taxes paid to the federal budget and the general principles of taxation and
dues in the Russian Federation shall be fixed by the federal law.
4. State loans shall be issued according to the rules fixed by the federal law and shall be
floated on a voluntary basis. [emphasis added]
With reference to this @p36 of the treatise cited:
"Laws need to be changed. That means that it is necessary to take the State
Duma under control. That means that a parliamentary majority is required.
And therefore, a party needs to be created that will win the general elections.
A political structure which is currently rather popular starts being created.
The majority party in the Duma now has representation sufficient to enable an amendment to
the constitution to change the above provisions, not to mention the laws pursuant to same. Whether
that is actually politically feasible is another matter.
The treatise you cited appears to be somewhat dated with regard to the constraints, if any,
on changes to central banking in Russia.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT
• 200 Words @anon That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the
Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We
are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have
been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just
another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption
of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions
of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and
lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing
him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas
was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. Tsar Nicholas
was not that stupid to not see that the aggression against Serbia was in fact directed at Russia.
The Dual Alliance of 1879, coming immediately after the Berlin Congress was directed squarely
against Russia. By the time of Nicholas it evolved in the Triple Alliance and I have no doubts
that Russians knew that Romania had adhered in secret in 1882. He could not be unaware of the
'Drang nach Osten' mentality which gripped Germany by the end of the 19th century and that the
plans for the partition of Russia were on the drawing board. He could not have been unaware that
the rejection of his proposals for disarmament has induced Germany to believe that the proposal
reflected the weakness of Russia. He could not been unaware of Moltke's proposal in 1912 for a
preventive war against Russia. He could not have been unaware that an external war was a precondition
of for the revolution.
War was imposed on Russia. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Blacktail , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
• 200 Words The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US - toward state-of-the-art
obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors
are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.
That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s
and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the
early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.
The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about
5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful
and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them),
but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".
And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the
Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't
much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's
no closer to being combat-ready.
These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things
(cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending
to weakness.
•
Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
• 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man ;) Just for
your warning – well, bit of cultural and genetical conditioning helps in this case.
As one of my grandfathers was helping in early stages of establishing
Unfortunately, I did not have chance to discuss these issues with him.
Unfortunately, depending on point view, I am not enough pragmatic for current ideologically
driven socio-economical society
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonHUN , April 18, 2017 at 7:22 am GMT
• 600 Words @Joe Wong "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru
the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind,
... ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big
fake news. It depends on the area, in some things they are 30 years behind, or even 40. The USSR
collapsed in 1991 and for at least 10 years Russia had no money even to pay its soldiers. As the
Chechen debacles had shown they were in shambles. Their new projects weren't going much forward,
as you can see they resumed their 1980′s projects after 2000 when they had more oil income and
Putin made the Russian state working again (well, kind of it is still hindered by corruption,
disincentivizes citizens from being entrepreneurial (in a state where the rules can be changed
overnight at the ruler's whim (no real rule of law) and you can be a billionaire oligarch but
you can't be sure the state doesn't simple take everything from you and throw you in prison overnight,
even arranging for your "accidental" death, except the money you siphoned to foreign accounts
and real estate abroad etc.) It is mafia state, or a mafia (ex KGB) presenting itself as the state.
Of course it is more ore less true everywhere (in the US too of course), deep under the veneer
of democracy and rule of law, but in Russia it is almost open and blatant. Also the Russians don't
have any traditions of enterpreneurship, private incentive, contrary to China, which is also a
very corrupt country with a corrupt and totally nondemocratic regime (contrary to Russia which
has token Western-style democratic institutions now), but thanks to the industriousness of the
Chinese people they have risen to where they are now. Average Russians still seem to expect the
state to provide for them as it was in the USSR, they need a "Father Tsar" which is now Putin,
or they are just drinking too much and are in a rut, idk.
As for the years it was only an estimate of course, but as I said they first had to make up
for the lost decade after 1991, like finishing subs that were left unfinished since 1992 and things
like that. First really new gadgets were the Armata (and Kurganets) which is still a newcomer,
and T-50, still not an operational fighter. Regarding SAM's I must say the Russians always were
the fans of SAM's but they were ineffective in the ME and Vietnam too. Didn't stop the enemy from
achieving air superiority. I don't doubt that the S-300 /400 is much more advanced than the SAM
systems of the 60′s and 70′s were, but they would have to face a much more advanced opponent too.
Like low RCS planes that cannot be detected until they are well within the range of their air-to-surface
weapons or dozens of targets flying at 20-3o m coming in from multiple directions.
The F-35 is derided around here, the US spent a fortune on it, true. It has problems (only known
because the US is more open, you usually don't read in the media about problems with the new Chinese
or Russian planes, sure you think it is because they don't have any with them?) but it's capabilities
are something. Stealth is not some scam as some believe. It is serious business when your SAM's
or AAM's cannot lock on the damn thing even if you have a monster longwave radar that can detect
it from a few dozen miles
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT
• 200 Words @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that
there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based
on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or
Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works
for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent
well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real
technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting
accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks
to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project
experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union,
in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which
dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian
military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
Am I missing any other component of success?
Just a possibility – or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)
It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers'
world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle
is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought,
and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version
says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
and also due to fact that:
Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development
any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part
of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the
present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms
resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation
of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
59-60).
Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.
+ learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current
Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.
•
anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
• 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov
When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of
the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from
"western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic,
contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what
they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US
"missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first
phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination
of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.
P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is
a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things
Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the
issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological
dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still,
after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible.
In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's
definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff
Academy uses virtually identical definition. Your main point is well taken. PPP instead of simply
GDP captures lower costs in Russia and is a better starting point. Plus, the US military procurement
is remarkably inefficient. The combination of the two plus tacit and institutional knowledge regarding
spending on military hardware makes analysis based on US spending misleading.
However, the US is remarkably efficient in many other areas and has had the best performing
developed economy since 2008.
Regarding access to capital markets, the US over the last decade has developed a massive unconventional
oil industry. This was done with capital investment of $3 trillion. Which came from capital markets.
Not only was this unplanned, but it was done with grudging support from the Obama administration.
And it is of enormous geo strategic value. I wish to hell that our defense doctrine would plug
this new fact - US has no need for Middle East oil - into their strategy. Not to totally discount
its importance, but the idea fighting and dying for a strategic resource that can be bought or
drilled for needs to be thought out.
If we were going to refight WW 2, then we would have some problems with global supply chains,
etc. The next major war, if we have one, won't be like WW 2. The logic of a US conventional war
with Russia is stupid. Either side with a decisive conventional advantage would simply increase
the risk of it going nuclear.
Russia could, if they were so inclined, forcibly take back some of the former USSR. But why
would they want to? Even Crimea is expensive. It has taken what seems like forever to build the
Kerch Strait Bridge. They have their Naval Base and the border dispute will keep Ukraine out of
NATO. Technically, they could try it, but one of the requirements for membership is that the nation
is not involved in conflict. It's held in Georgia and Moldova.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DanC , April 18, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT
• 400 Words @Carlton Meyer If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier
strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:
http://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm
If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki2-uyCHOA Great article.
Concerning wastage of resources, here's what John Patch of the USN had to say:
The Soviets debated building a significant carrier fleet in the 1960s but determined that
large carriers had no place in the nuclear age, partly because of their vulnerability to missiles
with nuclear warheads.2 While later choosing to build larger carriers, Moscow always retained
the view that carriers remained vulnerable.
It is surely significant that Russia sold or gave away all its cold war-era aircraft carriers
and retains only the hybrid aircraft-capable cruiser, Kuznetsov.
They "get" it that the role of capital surface ships is changing,, and diminishing. This is
also indicative of why the Russians will shock the first fleet that tries to engage them. They
keep their planners and developers focused on what actually matters, and serious war gaming, rather
than rigging things to provide the answer they want for careerist reasons
Note that it took the attacking general about 5 minutes using a swarm of old-generation cruise
missiles to sink enough craft to disable the fleet's networked defense and EW capacity, with crew
amounting to 20,000 on the ships sunk alone. The remaining ships were sitting ducks for the follow
up attacks.
These were subsonic cruise missiles. A bunch of moskits would have wiped everything out.
And still these fools keep spending money on carrier groups. it's noteworthy that they restarted
the war game and ordered the opposing general to stop making effective attacks. That sums up exactly
why the US keeps wasting money and doing stupid things.
__________________
As an aside, note that the CGI from the movie of an aircraft carrier attack is not realistic.
Projectiles travelling at the speeds shown would easily be destroyed or diverted by fleet defense
systems.
The new BrahMos adaptation of the Onyx missile travels at 2,800 mph. By comparison a bullet
fired from a high compression hunting rifle travels at 1,700 mph.
The ballistic missiles such as the Dong feng being developed by the Chinese, will have incoming
speeds as high as 5,000 mph.
The human eye can't actually see objects moving that fast.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joey Zaza , April 18, 2017 at 9:48 am GMT
@Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent
3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.
Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per
capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does
on the military it will simply go broke.
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia
is between Mexico and Suriname)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Hopefully the President
of Russia will take on board your succinct and informed analysis. Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
@reiner Tor I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians,
it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.
Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with
great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them - none? a little?
a lot? a whole salt mine?
Underestimate Americans in what ? Stupidity ? Reply More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
@reiner Tor
US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher
test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Russians have already
defeated Ottomans and Turkey is NOT a tough test for Russia given Turkey invades Russia otheriwse
unlike US you don't expect Russia to go launch a war bravado against them. Reply More...
This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT
@2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US
now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong. The war that the Japanese started pushed by the Schiff banking
cabal was ended in 1945 by the people they helped to overturn a friend of Japan, the Tsar Nicholas
II. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
@utu The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.
How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take
to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this
job?
How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?
How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?
What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly
safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.
And now this:
Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular
500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?
The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies
take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must
take this into account.
Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its
power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets
to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive.
This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey
AF that has over 200 F-16.
I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer
Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign
troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup
d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian
hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar
with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was
the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature
there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State.
There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and
apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.
I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer. S-300 can destroy
Israeli warplanes even before they leave their airfields for sky. Do you see Russians doing it
? Why ? Because Russia and Israel have friendly relations and Russia doesn't interfere in Hezbollah
and Israelis conflict. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT
• 300 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I
do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.
Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with
your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In
other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and
US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as
an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office.
Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude
that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in
battle.
In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with
the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum:
no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies,
like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority
which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations
of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent
conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which
it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands
in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently
serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia
has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China
being the master copier.
Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can
get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some
underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful
military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's
extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free
project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?
As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan
of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this
design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle
of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese
apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well
the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised
plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.
There is a slight flaw in your comment.
Israeli used Greece's S-300 PMU-1 to prepare their F-16I pilots for potential air strikes on
Iran .
we still don't know which version went to Iran so if they practice on the S-300PMU-1 and Iran
gets the S-300VM it will be like practising on a home cat and then going against a tiger.
Even US and UK had older S-300 models with them. US has S-300PS/PMU systems at Nevada. It has
same value as figuring out Turkish F-16 from Egyptian/Pakistan/UAE/Taiwan /Korean.
But yes earlier S-300 models are not completely protected Israel succeeded where many in NATO
failed against even an old system like PMU. Regarding S-300PMU, it has been upgraded substantially
in previous years.
Its guidance system is literally unjammable unless huge resources are dedicated, ie broadband
noise jamming of the most powerful kind.
Though recently Israel announced that it is upgrading its F-16 variants external link to be
able to handle the vaunted Russian S-300 anti-aircraft system. Iran is perennially about to receive
shipments of the system. But mere intention does not mean they have managed to do so.
It was the middle of the 1990s and money was nonexistent in Russia . They sold components of
an S-300V battery to the US likely the oldest model they had that was incomplete.With the money
they made they upgraded the whole system to S-300VM or Antei-2500.So in effect the US paid for
the next generation to replace the generation that was compromised.And the S-300V was in service
in most former Soviet republics so chances were eventually they would get their hands on it anyway
at least this way they got their own funding to develop a replacement system.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
bb. , April 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps
- all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom.
Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot. not treating US data seriously is obviously hyperbole, but incidentally a very on spot
one in this case.
all things being equal, you are right about market formation and capitalization. but these are
not normal times. nobody really knows whats going to happen when the shit, which is the US stock
market QE fueled ponzi scheme, hits the fan. it is very hard to take the subprime, derivative,
QE, buyback economy of the last almost 20 years seriously.
it is also false to say that zuckerbook is useless. it generates way too much money(compared to
twitter or tesla) to make that statement. in general, it is hard to estimate the value and effectiveness
of marketing expenses and facebook put a decent metric on it, better than google to some extent.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP , April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT
• 200 Words @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between
the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory
by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and
got the shit kicked out of them.
On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption
and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions
are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but
also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign
powers.
Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes)
in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
But, I certainly could be wrong.
I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian
Empire pre-1904.
Sorry, that's just completely wrong.
The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along
in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten
itself into World War I).
The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however,
is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources
compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American
decline that Britain didn't have.
Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's
weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically
negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian
vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the
third.
•
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NEW!
They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US
Belarus sold the whole complex to the US, S-300V.
Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
• 100 WordsNEW! @Blacktail The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the
US --- toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many
times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.
That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s
and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the
early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.
The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about
5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful
and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them),
but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".
And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the
Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't
much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's
no closer to being combat-ready.
These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things
(cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending
to weakness.
They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not
because of age,
Sir, please, don't write things you don't know about. Pacific Fleet's Delta III (Project 667
BDR) SSBNs are in dire need of replacement, while Northern Fleet's SSBNs of Delta IV class (Project
667 BDRM) are nearing the end of life. Remaining Project 941 (Akula-class> not Typhoon) are not
even consideration for Borey-class, serving out their lives as test platforms, mostly. Borey (Project
955 and 955A) was created to replace aging Deltas.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
• 200 WordsNEW! @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that
there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based
on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or
Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works
for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent
well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real
technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting
accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks
to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project
experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union,
in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which
dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian
military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.
Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck
(or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing
any other component of success?
Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie.
This is crucial. Sure, Chemezov's or Rahmanov's salaries are huge by Russian standards (well,
by Western too) and allows the military-industrial elite to live very comfortably, to put it mildly
but the answer is the state's ownership of the whole defense sphere, from industry to doctrinal
development. Relationship between Russians and their state are dramatically different from what
most Westerners ever experienced in their relations. It was inevitable in the nation with such
military history as Russia. As I mentioned Arthur J. Alexander's "spread"–Russia does have this
pressure applied to her institutes to, in the end, become this character from Russian anecdote,
where he buys a crib for his toddler from one of the former MIC plants and after assembling it
at home gets AK-47. Russia is bound to produce (at least mostly) weapons which have to work.
Here is what Russians do, barn, of course, being a representation of Russian State;)
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons
for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus
a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK?
Fat boy is developing missiles that will hit the USA, nuff said.
Ok a little more, he can sell those little nuclear bombs to some terrorist group, now 'nuff said!'
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT
• 100 Words @NoseytheDuke The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having
an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in
general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.
The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in
"loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared
as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.
No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure
in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has
accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of
the Neocon Israel Firsters.
You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for
the American people, right? What a tosser! I shall refrain from returning your predictably dumb
insults.
On the topic of foreign aid and loan guarantees, you aren't well-read nor qualified to render
any opinion likely to be worth more than the pixels wasted by your fatuous lines.
First, understand the difference between actual loans and loan guarantees.
It irks you the U.S. sends foreign aid to Israel by an amount which really means not a great
deal [average, $1.86b % $310b = 0.006 of GDP], even as U.S. foreign aid finds a much wider set
of recipients. That's your emotional prerogative, one which breaches a very, very long tradition
observed by powerful nations.
There is little you or I could do about it. Alea iacta est .
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Kiza You are stupid, are you not? No, I am smarter than you, and probably better looking.
Just a guess, but an educated one, lol! •
Anon , April 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov
Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real
value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.
https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap
Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of
code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).
Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.
https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world
will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such
a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million
people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question
whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation
which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes"
on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it
to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a
collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking,
of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual
things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many
in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because
constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off
accident.
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not
need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics
to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus
and the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.
•
Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
• 200 Words @Erebus
Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
No, it cannot.
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local
currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD,
the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand,
and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print
enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough,
and so they stay where they are.
So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest
of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties.
A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of
thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.
The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution
which all but prohibits its restructuring.
You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf
The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print
local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves.
The above is your fabrication, the link is a write out by an over zealous nationalist with
half baked truth, and the link is neither a treaty quoted by you to support your claim nor saying
there is such IMF treaty.
Most nations hardly have any hard currency reserves, yet the amount of local currency they
printed proves your "prescribed ratio" a fake news. Even those nations have hard currency reserves,
the amount of local currency they prints makes your "prescribed ratio" a Hollywood fantasy.
Putin has begun de-dollarization Russian economy long time ago, Russian has signed currency
SWAP with China, EU and Japan, so that Russian can trade without USD. China also has set up AIIB
and Alt-SWIFT for rest of the world to bypass the USD as well. Time has changed, man.
Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
• 300 WordsNEW! @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps
- all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom.
Well, duh.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine
in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises
that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit
on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's
not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise
as much capital as they need.
As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's
been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities.
Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell
and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade
them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on
the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building
engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?
Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an
idiot.
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments"
which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who,
as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit
here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point–structure
of GDP.
You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What
is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers
the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US
labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.
In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's
quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the
process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change
it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military
imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it)
the house of cards folds.
• Agree: Sergey Krieger •
Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anon
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need
much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live
perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and
the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality. I guess what Andrei Martyanov was trying to
say that virtual is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin
air, hence the American economy is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created
thru the thin air. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
• 100 Words @Anon
Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist.
Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the
world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however,
such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs
half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask
yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook
or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury.
While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace
giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as
most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual
services.
The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need
much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live
perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and
the amygdala.
Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.
It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter,
food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well.
Yes, valid argument which true for GB, Belgium, Holland, with their Gulf Stream protected stable
clime, but I would prefer Mediterranean area such as Greece or Balkan for that matter.
Hmm Olive oil, vine, fishing sounds nice, but anything east of Frankfurt and North of let say
Berlin in Europe, will add different perspective. Heating for winter, and shorter summer. Just
ask people in Archangelsk or Petersburg
+ Virtual reality need quite a lot of electrical power to run, not only on your computer but
in cloud as well.
In reading their article they seem to forget about the Mig-15 and Mig-17 in Korea and Vietnam,
respectively, and about the effectiveness of those SAMs in Vietnam as well.
Didn't that traitor, John McCain get downed by a SAM?
@Erebus I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge.
That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic
instincts when that moment has passed.
America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's
death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest
known.
The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia
would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several
generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know
well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW,
other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every
reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.
Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear
attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would
be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to
keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them. The more likely
scenario is this: Sensing a number of strategic and tactical indicators of an impending attack,
the US launches a bolt out of the blue attack to cripple the Russian forces before they can attack.
Russian SLBMs and rail-based missiles get off a few MIRVs that take out DC and a few other major
cities (counter-force targetting is pointless after the first-strike), but no-harm no-foul since
the JEEP was executed at the time of the first-strike, so everybody who matters was saved from
harm and that pesky problem of too many idle hands in the major urban centers was finally taken
care of.
Alternatively, the Russians use EMP weapons already in orbit to take out the US grid. The US
NCA execute the SIOP. Outcome: See above.
Winning move is not to play, but the geniuses running things don't see the extintinction of
the little guy as a bug, rather as a feature.
lastnerve , April 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among
America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out
war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would,
notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long
as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself
as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and
military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.
I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion
regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this
is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions.
And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise
Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible
to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out.
Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will
not be worse than what these people are capable of.
As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to
war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government
is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict.
Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.
The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether
it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House
of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly
on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that
to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.
Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.
I agree with what you write except that the Deep State is but a part of the Globalist (NWO)
plans for their future world.
Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
@Kiza
It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things
around very quickly.
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has
been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under
the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health
budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of
the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then
probably around 4.5%.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump
is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost
collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed
buddies.
Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC
waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who
oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents
can only pretend.
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning
to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the
German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then
thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.
Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you
think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either
at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long
bond yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners,
then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll
have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best
Avery, April 18, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic
conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when
it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where
the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch
site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black'
release. Not always, but often.
I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests,
but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted
the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing
out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and
it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft
element using current tactics.
It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the
S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric
and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. {I guess much of it boils down to
how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test
took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse
phase. }
I don't doubt the veracity of the claim in the article. All I was commenting on was this sentence
of the author of the article: {From people who serve on it, and I quote:" mind boggling
capabilities".}
Traditionally Soviets/Russians have do spend more of their resources on defense, particularly
anti-air. Their anti-air missiles have a solid track record: the highly competent USAF – in personnel,
and training, and technology – lost lots and lots of equipment to Soviet SAMs in Viet Nam. Even
high-flying B52 were not safe.
Also, Egyptians shot down lots of Israeli jets with Soviet AAs during the Yom Kippur war .
So there is no doubt in my mind that S-300/S-400 are very capable systems. But the phrase
'mind boggling' is a bit of a hyperbole.
What is it based on? engineering specifications and simulated tests.
I have a bit of a technical background (commercial, not military).
We'd simulate all sorts real-life conditions in testing the product, but as soon as it was sent
out, humans managed to find some sequence that crashed the system. You just can't simulate the
randomness of the real world.
If and when the S-400 is used in anger, then we'll see if its capabilities are 'mind boggling'
. Until then, it's just conjecture.
Seamus Padraig, April 18, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
@LondonBob Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities,
interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating
over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional
imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous
to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline.
Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.
True, but it can be effective as a propaganda technique nevertheless. Orwell referred to it
as 'doublethink'.
iffen, April 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT
@Sam Shama
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond
yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then
the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have
far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.
Who gets to define "least desirable"?
I know that you are not talking about IAM members.
A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do
you have in mind?
ThatDamnGood , April 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
@Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
@reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only
send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Come on! While serving in Africa,
I saw the US Marines, and, and, well, not many whites were visible! Mostly minorities, specially
Hispanics, and Blacks, so there goes your argument; same for the Army. So Hush! (The AF is the
only service with majority whites). The Navy, lots of Philippinos.
Andrei Martyanov , •
Website April 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12
The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless
social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that
you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP
and GNP tabulations.
Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing
on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected
and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude
would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral
was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval
and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first
and foremost and that was that.
I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did
I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers
at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were
non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.
Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the
event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident
(USS Donald Cook).
Cheers- There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers.
Here is one such case:
There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking
through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS
Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums–a complete baloney, of
course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars".
Here I discuss a little bit the issue.
@iffen Nah, you are still the greatest idiot on unz
And the field of competition is not that weak.
And a weak sister chimes in. •
Timur The Lame, April 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
@ Smoothiex12,
Thank you for the information. I shall look up your post regarding the Donald Cook incident.
Your take on it would be news to me as it did seem to be disabled, though I only read relatively
superficial accounts.
As ThatDamnGood pointed out (thanks) it was indeed the Kitty Hawk incident that escaped my
recollection. I know that these type incidents occur but it was something about the aforementioned
case that stuck in my mind, the super low altitude I think.
Time for a revisit and a memory tonic. But then again even Kasparov eventually lost to Deep
Blue.
Cheers-
Seminumerical, April 18, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT
@AtomAnt "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"
Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft
carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing
3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A
Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central
bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They
insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia
is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general
said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector
wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin. Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable.
But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile
or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability. •
inertial, April 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov
Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension
funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments.
There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments"
which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who,
as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit
here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point--structure
of GDP.
You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What
is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers
the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US
labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.
In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's
quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the
process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change
it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military
imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it)
the house of cards folds. Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
@ondrej Am I missing any other component of success?
Just a possibility - or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)
It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers'
world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle
is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought,
and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version
says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.
and also due to fact that:
Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development
any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part
of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the
present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms
resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation
of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
59-60).
Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.
+ learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current
Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.
learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it
personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things.
After starting to learn a new language I would think – I had no idea that lego could be arranged
this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether
it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person.
Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps".
Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
@Z-man And a weak sister chimes in. I provided a link about North Korea to
a blog which could educate you about it. But you still persisted with your original bull. This
is a clear characteristic of an idiot, because the uninformed inform and correct themselves. And
yes, there is a strong competition here at unz for the title of King of All Idiots.
Here it is again, one last time, The Reason for North Korea's Nuclear Program and Its Unrequited
Offers to End It : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more
On North Korea, the US chefs cook up their usual menu of bullshit and bombs ,
whilst the latest chef being the most prolific on both.
Seraphim, April 19, 2017 at 12:11 am GMT
@AP
I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire
pre-1904.
Sorry, that's just completely wrong.
The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along
in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten
itself into World War I).
The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however,
is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources
compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American
decline that Britain didn't have.
Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's
weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically
negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian
vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the
third.
Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia
on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France
followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17. •
NoseytheDuke, April 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
@iffen Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable
elements.
Who gets to define "least desirable"?
I know that you are not talking about IAM members.
A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do
you have in mind?
One that focuses on the defence of the nation?
The Alarmist, April 19, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
@Sam Shama
Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
Hi Kiza,
I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting
categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to
deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion
based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.
Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at
the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what
Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending
has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close
to your Fed buddies.
"Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond
yields have been doing the opposite.
I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually
raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?
Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet
another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of
doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else
in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the
least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?
Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock
has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?
CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international
use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower),
the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.
The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to
aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows
out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.
Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's
decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value
during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings
imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS
The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give
the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status?
I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance
of such status requires a far more diversified economy.
When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then
the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have
far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously
since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know
with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".
Best
""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and
long bond yields have been doing the opposite."
US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from
time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US
every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the
past couple of decades.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad,
which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury
bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT
@The Alarmist
""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long
bond yields have been doing the opposite."
US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time
to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every
few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple
of decades.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad,
which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury
bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ... ad nauseum.
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
@Kiza
learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally
because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After
starting to learn a new language I would think - I had no idea that lego could be arranged this
way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it
also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person.
Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps". One could say that to certain degree it is disadvantage
for English to be lingua-franca.
In many ways it is also most abused language in world. All speakers bring to English their
language frameworks.
One could conclude that English native speakers became more accustomed – to be more tolerant
for non-precise meanings or statements of others to certain degree – due to many non-native English
speakers. Therefore it is not that obvious for them.
I think, speakers of other languages would often not accept such improper usage of words or
grammar in their language – (thinking) because by language we think.
Combine that with euphemisms and political correctness and you have recepy for disaster in
communication.
Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT
@inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably,
usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.
Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space
for that matter.
So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-)
Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT
@Ondrej
The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably,
usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.
Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space
for that matter.
So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-) In theory,
the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed
to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western
financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of
the real economy, much worse than central planning. •
Frederic Bastiat , April 19, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
@inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned
my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I
can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct
sets.)
And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well
come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are
working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless
cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an
investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the
"real" economy like GM.
Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally
don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or
"fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have
to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems?
Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big?
Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest
of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy,
which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.
Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then
I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid
point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen
to cranks.
Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that
it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before
you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these
services, and why.
The financial sector is a fraud. It is a parasitic industry that only sucks tax payers money
in the long run.
Nassim Taleb is spot on regarding the financial industry:
@Kiza In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient
allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support
the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have
turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning.
In theory , the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of
investments, as opposed to central planning.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
I know theory, but there is empirical evidence that it does not, see Taleb for that matter,
or Schumpeter in my comment 165.
Schumpeter is worth to read , as he argues, logically, in case of market equilibrium = fair
prices interest would approach to zero, and it ceases to be incentive for financing innovation.
And this leads us back to Marx`s theory of simple reproduction as his main argument in Kapital
Volume I. which create a problem for system.
As for Central economy, you would be probably surprised – at least I was surprised,
that it was in fact J.V. Stalin who critiqued too much of Central planning. He was warning in
50. that it would block next development of system. in his book Economical problems of socialism.
You mention your experience with socialistic system, in case you want to refresh your memory
or get better than propagandistic (from right or left) view of Marx . I advise David Harwey lectures
on youtube.
Kiza , April 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
@Kiza
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Here I quote a funny comment from a guy on zerohedge. This is how the Western economies have been
operating:
You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your
brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so
that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company
secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your
listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow
to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided
with the release. The public then buys your bull.
AP, April 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
@Seraphim Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It
declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The
declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium
neutrality.
Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17.
Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia
on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg.
It declared war first, after Russia had mobilized and refused to turn back its mobilization.
Germany would not and should not have waited until huge masses of Russian troops had actually
crossed its border before declaring war.
The sad events of the 20th century in some ways can be seen as a tragic, Old Testament style
story of sin and brutal retribution. Serbia committed regicide, and lost 25% of its population
in the ensuing war. Nicholas II, a decent but foolish man, supported the regicidal regime and
was himself murdered, along with his family. The peoples of the Russian Empire didn't stop that
crime, and suffered the millions dead under Bolshevism. Wilhelm sent Lenin to Russia and lost
his own throne. The peoples of Central Europe abandoned the Habsburgs and suffered decades of
Nazism, Communism and war. Such was the sad fate of the former Holy Alliance.
ANOSPH , April 19, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying
over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:
There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking
through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS
Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums--a complete baloney,
of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down
radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.
Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian
system is due for a collapse?
Part 1: Part 2:
I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his
words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."
Andrei Martyanov, •
Website April 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
@Seminumerical Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have
a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo.
So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability.
But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with
a missile or torpedo
Not against peer. Dynamics there is very different than it would have been with some adversary
as Iran. Unless the "disproportionate" response becomes nuclear, what is a definition of "disproportionate".
I can tell you what may happen if one of the CVNs sunk and this is not my idea but of former Chief
Of Naval Operations late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: the psychological demoralizing impact will be overwhelming
and that is what may push a political (and suicidal) decision on nuclear response. In purely conventional
framework–the game may become very different. To have some (however disagreeable from purely tactical
point of view) primer on one of very many scenarios, you may try Naval War College Newport Papers,
especially #20.
I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his
words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."
Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian
system is due for a collapse?
My attitude to Strelkov is similar to my attitude to clowns or not-adequate people. Having
said all that, Russia does face some serious economic challenges which are of purely domestic
origins and I never hid my reserved attitude to Putin (despite all his achievements) because of
the fact him being an economic "liberal" and surrounding himself in economic block with a bunch
of Gaidar-worshipping hacks. Medvedev's government is an affront to overwhelming majority of Russian
people.
Sam Shama, April 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
@Kiza
As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the
borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression
abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow
into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse,
repeat ad nauseum.
"Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that
most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The
number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks"
which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official
statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and
all.
I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at
government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality
moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .
Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date
when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously
good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that
Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear
war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now
imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so
called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after
for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just
needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they
are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment
of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.
Hey Kiza,
I base my views on data and economic theory generally accepted in the West. If one summarily
dismisses these instruments of analyses then, of course, all conclusions derived are rejectable.
Which is what you are doing. Fine.
Simply deeming our system fraudulent and built on myth amounts to a meaningless unfalsifiable
assertion. Unfalsifiable, since the collapse event dangles always in the undefined "future".
His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future,
that discrete events do not exist.
I thought you were using past experience to assert with high confidence that the West is headed
for a repeat of Weimar Has there been a total destruction of productive capacity which eluded
my reverie?
Data for prediction [at least parameter estimation of any system] is always from the past.
I am not aware of any data from the future, is anyone? I don't claim a system superior without
subjecting it to out-of-sample and live outcomes. Some Western models have failed recently [pure
Rational Expectations models, e.g.]while others have succeeded with flying colours [New Keynesian
Models]. What good is any theory or claim without corroborating empirical evidence? To me, claims
of our economies headed to a collapse, because because well BIG DEBT! WEIMAR! FALSE STATISTICS!
etc are just emotional outbursts devoid of any internally consistent theory, let alone the utter
absence of evidence since the whole trope started in 2008.
Alarmist: you stated earlier that inflation stats are misleading. I am perfectly willing to
accept that statement if it were supported by facts. If during your visits to supermarkets, shops,
online purchases you found your favourite items costing more, that in itself is no reason to conclude
inflation is at hand. I do shop, and a great deal in point of fact :-), and I've noticed that
prices of computers, e.g. have fallen continuously and dramatically. What about rent inflation?
Or transportation? Rent inflation stands at levels much lower than averages from the past 70 years
and transportation costs have fallen greatly as well [Air travel as a percentage of median per
capita income]. Do you deny these? Trouble arises when people take these things for granted, and
only complain about (mostly) food items that have gone up in price ["I hate these prices for eggs!
Back in my childhood, a dozen cost only a penny!"]
If you don't believe in official CPI/Core PCE, look at the MIT Billion Prices Index, which
provides one with real-time inflation from literally a billion prices from online markets which
operate globally. Those indices substantially tell the same story: inflation has been heading
down!
Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China
(without causing a global nuclear war).
How is he going to regime change Russia? It's a pipe dream. Putin is immensely popular and
in my reckoning, he is simply negotiating spheres of influence with USA.
China, well they are joined to the US at the hip!. The U.S. is only looking for China to wean
away from its mercantilist stance and start buying our goods and services.
Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly
because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land).
Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under
the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily
ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick
system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer.
Russia is a vastly endowed nation with a gifted population. The climate isn't all that balmy,
shall we say. Her natural resources are the assets of her citizens to do with them as they deem
optimal.
I'll go along with your hypothetical scenario in which Putin is unseated and a new Yeltsin
is installed. I would consider that outcome both undesirable and approaching a vanishingly low
probability. You'll need to convince me of its plausibility and DT's desire to bring about such
an outcome.
Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
Notable quotes:
"... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking
campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of
the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.
Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and
2013,
told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed
in a new
CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack
on our very democracy."
"A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to
our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political
equivalent of 9/11."
Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never
was in field operations
Notable quotes:
"... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
"... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
"... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
"... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
"... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
"... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
"... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
"... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose
that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to
promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?
Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies,
adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.
"We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price,"
Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell
answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way
that "Moscow would get the message."
Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's
"Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other
tantalizing bits of information.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people
– I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria
and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we
were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity
for the CIA in planning?
John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W.
Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing
of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike
Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't
like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to
ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally
recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country
by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to
start killing people because of it.
Ray McGovern:What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than
I do because John dealt with him.
JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters.
Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through
the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got
into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations.
This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to
think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas
except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally.
He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in
difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill
foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.
RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy
of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad.
How does that bring peace to Syria?
JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the
Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something
that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even
inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on
TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.
This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director
under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought
through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.
RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding
like that? What is his motivation for doing this?
RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of
the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on
11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does
Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go?
It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition
of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of
Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants
bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
"... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
"... (Emphasis added) ..."
"... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
"... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking
– was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe
Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.
On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan"
for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent
animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive,
too.
Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying
to help Morell explain
what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad into submission.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria.
make the Russians pay a price in Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and
Tehran."
In the follow-up
interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American
non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.
Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety
that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria
to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in
the world).
Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians
and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did
that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing
Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.
The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.
But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already
inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside
nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.
What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such
as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians
to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.
Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem
should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a
prospective President Hillary Clinton.
A Slight Imprecision?
Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly
misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say
perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."
TV interviewer Charlie Rose.
Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented
his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change"
in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And
that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional
government that represents all of the Syrian people.
"That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran
wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries,
in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.
"And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give
you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some
pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard
to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which
the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already
fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.
"So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition.
And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's
an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending
this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue
to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)
Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on
the ground."
Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start
killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.
"So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And
here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would
see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are
extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his
offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement
we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)
"You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night,
right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here,
just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of
this.
"Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're
talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have,
and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right.
But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was
the way people interpreted it."
Acts of Illegal War
Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates
international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved
– the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."
Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after
it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.
Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow
Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the
U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the
sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.
However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including
Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.
Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the
arming and training of anti-government rebels (including
some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria
(aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish
rebels.
Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government
targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of
the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate
with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international
law.
And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any
deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists,"
except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously
muddled thinking do we have here?
One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged
the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington.
And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with
the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to
Moscow.
A Fawning Audition
Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell
was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration
by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on
March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)
Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State
when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the
job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put
her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think
the public needs to know."
And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie,
I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We
trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus,
I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave
us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust
her word and I trust her judgment."
Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable
private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been
marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?
FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising
these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."
For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity"
and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted
in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking
him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.
My Travails With Charlie
Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated
remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor
the Presbyterian wing of JINSA
" (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).
The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary,
"Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described
the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify
invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation
that had originally been extended to him.
True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was
his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going
to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided
to spare myself the trouble.
The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay
for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto
YouTube. It might be worth
a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
"Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive
and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world.
But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple
times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world
is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term.
At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses,
loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators
can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never
be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there
is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.
To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point
the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford
anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their
hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership
"... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
"... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
"... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to
yesterday's hastily written comment
on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment
can be attributed to my gullibility.
Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon
came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty
good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized
as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time
when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed
the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He
died in the 1983 embassy bombing.
-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence
chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.
-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch"
Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes,
Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in
California.
Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program
during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold
cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the
time Nimr died.
-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't
blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough*
A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO
turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact
with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.
Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that
I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests
it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.
-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy
defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably
is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that
such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.
Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of
Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration
to end the conflict on his terms.
The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts
said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.
The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued
a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat
airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.
The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate
on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air
space.
"... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
"... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
"... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
"... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
"... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
"... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
"... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
"... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
"... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
"... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
"... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
"... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
"... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
"... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
"... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
"... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
"... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
"... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
"... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
"... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
"... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
"... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
"... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
"... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
"... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
"... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
"... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
"... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
"... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
"... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
"... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
"... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
"... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
"... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
"... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
"... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
"... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
"... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
"... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
"... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
"... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
"... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
"... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
"... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
"... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
"... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
"... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
"... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
"... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
"... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
"... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
"... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
"... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
"... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
"... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
"... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
"... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
"... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
"... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
"... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
"... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
"... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
"... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
"... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
"... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
"... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
"... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
"... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
"... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
"... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
"... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
"... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
"... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
"... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
"... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
"... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
"... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
"... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
"... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
"... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations
when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose
them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!
As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these
fact up.
No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed
away apparently..
Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military
'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense
of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades,
a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual'
'alert'.
Maintaining heightened readiness, to
Stand To! , stand
ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed,
eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year
after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and
discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.
I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have
backed away apparently..
China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa
is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese
most certainly do know what they're doing.
The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda
relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.
The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now
threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly
due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood
they shed.
The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce
and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues
and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its
South Korean proxies.
The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west
seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed
that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.
This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in
China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an
economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they
become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve
Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire
in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world.
End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.
No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness
what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed
they did)
The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and
that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the
cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the
sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)
The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set
off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.
If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used
to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.
Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times,
it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes
lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach
- and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive
regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation
without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.
There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see
this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.
China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North
Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.
@ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor.
Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. '
Vale, Pax Tecum '.
I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was
a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and
nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China.
Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise?
Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a
comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion
you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
@ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern
is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.
If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him
hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.
+1 on that. Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average
westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea
whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always
react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.
thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how
ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where
their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea
is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens
the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.
It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad
is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime
change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should
be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after
all happened "for its own good."
If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would
get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that
WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS...
would you have believed me?
Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies
could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now,
disgusting.
Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.
Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the
36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother
of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.
China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
LINK
"World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of
having small hands.
And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.
~ ~ ~ ~
Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.
Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them,
and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail
to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I
hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.
A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is
AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.
NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first
tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.
Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions
more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.
So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?
For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to
this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
(actually, 2 2-hr interviews).
Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain
the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect
excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not
say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the
area.
Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He
is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic
behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.
I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could
have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.
IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with
good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US
if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato
will support his coming war.
b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to
this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from
all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.
Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as
much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies
in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's
family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level
(thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work
the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.
I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea.
They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.
Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything
and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.
@30
You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding
of the subject, pls listen to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A
- that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
@ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of
the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties
since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in
1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese
involvement.
Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History'
of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.
If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually
learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives
'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?
It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort
to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April
18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement
said.
.......
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah.
It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
@ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36
Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re
Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important
1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references,
from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:
I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in
the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly
endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral
view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience
and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider
nefarious reasons.
I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the
presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.
It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery
of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in
exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil
reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out
of it.
It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The
delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were
build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton
had already renegaded on.
"demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"
Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think
these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget
is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.
You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the
poor, homeless and ill.
Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and
consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is
There One At All?' thread. Cheers.
I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population
with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the
Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin,
Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels
or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.
Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again,
what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic
allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept
this tremendous blunder?
Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted
back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the
pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.
At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should
have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.
Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short
on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.
So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an
ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops
and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting
regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.
Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It
is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.
US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against
Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and
no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things
are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans
a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she
want to risk losing the access to US markets.
For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert
Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical
devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url
is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs,
but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the
text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll
make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.
Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!
No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat
the experience.
Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton
with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees
from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood.
Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first
class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).
PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in
Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi
led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan
thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends,
Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between
Tehran and Riyadh.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)
Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on
occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6
months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has
been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?
To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing
armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War
risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants
study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous
famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)
SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now
That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable.
Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.
In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will
be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior
or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.
I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment
anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades
of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically
70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America"
spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.
I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly
after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for
believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created
an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result
of it. I am in South Korea.
Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring
and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all,
so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing
in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as
sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring
to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to
reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.
The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against
humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters
and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."
However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end
to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.
@ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52
Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable'
6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ...
China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue
to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign...
fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation,
or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.
Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike
(highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet
enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying
degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction
to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?
Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling
for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people,
and you are calling people here crazy?
The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests
- the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.
As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes
for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.
ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan
would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.
Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the
Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.
He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff
Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally
deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.
"We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the
two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any
Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.
In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example.
In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest
and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family
in the UAE.
In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although
Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.
The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the
most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.
While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from
a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.
...
Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated,
Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo
abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions
on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.
This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power
on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai.
The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting
authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's
camp.
For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise
anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.
Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership
is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.
The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of
WWII.
The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two
US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air
raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production
plants.
The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on
the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought.
The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects
of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and
physical experiments on real people.
I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth
lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?
Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars
of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.
The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth
is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now
to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia,
one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was
the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of
any Australian politician.
The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything,
no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.
I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so
years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded
by other currencies taking up market share.
I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one
threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take
down the US.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.
What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US
strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the
coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk
at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?
US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines
put out by these type think tanks.
The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts--
basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified
because...
following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior
to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left
& Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully
documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.
You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju
from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation
inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?
From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control
escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful
with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone.
Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are
talking about.
Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the
city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in
accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.
If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other
currencies taking up market share.
Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...
If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves
and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD
first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and
win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions
do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?
IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated
in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed
US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe
? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)
Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy
of tension' goes on and on ...
Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for
military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced
is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate
all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about
to kick off again.
The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another
5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.
These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront
the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing
a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most,
South Koreans.
You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a
lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents
favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this
position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations;
few favor an outright withdrawal.
It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational
nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull
for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs
of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.
The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.
"The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer
adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib
chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks,
again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.
Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant
read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed
prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window
has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they
are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have
the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists
and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc
...
Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda
bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers
spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China
'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all,
given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re
supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good
time vassals) ... any ?
Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is
the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged
at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more
than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus,
I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and
raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the
Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China
is because of that rather stark reality.
Yonatan @62--
Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of
Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own
published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.
Monolycus--
The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's
Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which
side did most of the murdering:
"At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was
to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities
by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000'
political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken
out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country,
according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian
of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations
into all this have scarcely begun...
"When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans
were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many
other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by
atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...
"The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for
civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been
executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...
"...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A
U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world
in October 1953...
"At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...
"...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South
was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...
"...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the
American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern
massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable:
The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations,
and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...
Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of
military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they
import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?
Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the
other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a
naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?
Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of
the Rand report?
China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until
recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800
Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400,
also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.
China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear
submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for
now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her
Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years
it will become not only possible but highly probable.
US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens
to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once
mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol
Limited will testify.
It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via
trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force,
then waging a war for conquest.
I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.
But two remarks:
byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed
and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind
him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started.
The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already
in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.
I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These
are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service
in dependence of the media splash they create.
There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun
Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have
thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many
turned out to be false .
North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an
insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability
and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.
Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in
his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check
the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of
alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other
stories above.
North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged
"communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage?
Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer
in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?
I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created
the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write
that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.
Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.
Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece
he wrote about his
1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama
is enlightening:
Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent.
'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate
to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified
Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and
if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship
of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster
to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
- North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.
1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil
in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.
2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing
a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would
suggest such a move.
3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.
What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type
culture - US can overcome all no matter what?
Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild
guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology
of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold.
It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.
Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people
criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here.
To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does
not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs
in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they
are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not
North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest
sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely.
Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea.
Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint;
it is not Kim Yong-Un.
An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.
So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering
the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is
fired.
For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the
China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent
Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers,
sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining
army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from
potential threats other than Indian border effectively.
Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME
is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast.
And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital
'green' 'parade only' militaries.
What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?
The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend
a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...
The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold
War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint
training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?
The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual
knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder
of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the
carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft,
pilots, support crews and sailors ...
Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers
to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware
of this before.
Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new
reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with
the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which
in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for
export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.
Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information
about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.
I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge
of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s
to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all
took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow
mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured
I will be blown away.
American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That
is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative
congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays
which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously
a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens
into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind
him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the
good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism
they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly
the dumbest.
B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans
after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.
Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's
flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there
are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them
have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast
provinces if there are as yet no plans.
mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the
real US strategy?
Syria, Korea,
Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about
denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet
to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.
i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think
that war is rational in, literally, the end.
i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types.
the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes'
of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming'
might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money'
based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational
actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results
only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their
'trades' in.
i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now
that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?
we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon,
for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only
be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.
thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula
under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the
agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.
Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that
I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent
for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written
extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive
examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable,
easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format,
www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis
of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins
has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within
the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings,
http://www.ifstone.org/index.php
I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls
excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick"
using the white fleet to intimidate Japan: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html
The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North
Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including
the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.
U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised
of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see
Superstation95 for photos).
In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded
B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)
Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:
(1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;
(2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;
(3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens
from South Korea;
(4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.
There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?)
and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.
North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I
would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not
protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.
On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors
and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically
hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.
It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA).
Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a
Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?
@104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside
information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they
don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.
'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.
I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:
This is where this is going, I would guess:
US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
/~~~~~~~~~~ "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could
be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type
disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a
place unsuitable for life," he explained.
\~~~~~~~~~~
But that's not all we're going to get:
/~~~~~~~~~~
The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made
Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario
than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to
accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they
are in North Korean airspace."
\~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees.
Good job, eh?
@ blues
I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the
US, that can be abandoned if required.
@ jfl
I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars.
Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed.
Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all
of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country,
they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.
This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and
now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the
US become more threatening.
So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators
ect.
TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday,
front page reported on-line]
IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous President Donald Trump
has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean warmonger Kim Jong Un before he
can push the button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!
D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery
bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental
ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!
"Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the
elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk
missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.
Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the
tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.
====
Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how
did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr.
Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.
i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst.
and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play'
to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?)
to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?
Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes
on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault
- ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security?
The aggressor nation.
Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international
peace and security??
What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?
According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs
are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be
seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them
if they are on the ocean floor.
Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit
the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom
of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally
IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump
has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster
that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in
sight.
In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly
lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with
possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.
An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent
nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and
"Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing
the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until
it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as
cesium-137, into the environment."
It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in
the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of
the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these
daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone
for hundreds of years.
This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to
intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.
i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing
and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and
give him no way to look tuff.
Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?
Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is
very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's
brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and
her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on
the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
@29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming
war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes
will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.
everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't
provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the
opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war
instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.
it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries
in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.
if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia
as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington
is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but
sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?)
puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war
lovers.
where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?
@127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international
stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction
of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.
The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed
but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much
of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA:
Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.
"Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies
are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply
grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy"
trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.
One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all
US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.
Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were
met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war
and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands
and waters.
In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed
however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing
regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve
issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese
economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two
centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.
But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective
that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.
Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan
quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won
WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains
a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.
If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism
sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it
immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's
army' on the way to another killing spree. --
i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help
nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.
but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about
the 'great leader'.
during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.
by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if
only washington would accept him.
wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington
wish.
then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man
to get things done'
@ outraged.
What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war
component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving
60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.
Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way
of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.
From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.
it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
"As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear
and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea
(ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session
of the National People's Congress.
... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes
credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow
sea.
i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent
of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have
claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might
all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin
and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.
Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM |
134
@145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets.
B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality
lenses' that I find useful.
RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but
you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other
reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course
of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table'
kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.
Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick".
Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for
6 long volumes.
Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The
timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive
strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South
Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House
has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another
nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead
with his apparent plans.
\~~~~~~~~~~
@146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful
unitedsnake...'
but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's.
the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed
of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.
any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim
really just the korean version of trump?
an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound
about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?
151
Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare
covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link,
compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely
to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before
US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps
9-10pm Monday night Korean time???
Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against
the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.
i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a
whale
chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when
i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i
imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.
i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality',
so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the
point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted
'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown
and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored
by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines',
and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are
few and getting fewer, by their own design.
The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century.
Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover
America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street
and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars
would be needed.
The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed
from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After
WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were
reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They
joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various
international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies
to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms
...
After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would
it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell
& good time vassals) ... any ?
Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on
the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking
at this.
1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can
do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to
the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems
to have happened this year.
we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US
would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean
army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars
and missiles.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/
Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff
.....But what would the result of such a strike be?
For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the
country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history
of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for
the long-suffering North Korean people.
It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been
ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance
at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food.
If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist
leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad,
you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.
In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel
to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical
government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the
Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial
burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.
Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's
missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely
no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following
such an ill-conceived attack......
A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during
the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north
Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction
I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).
ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer
you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because
they ran out of other targets in some way).
Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks.
Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy
with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.
Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with
a bad haircut."
The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
"I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at
a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming
a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses,
and miraculously healed on its own.
But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks
in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb
in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff
I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.
Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the
violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need
to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside
culture. Its an insane outlook.
Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator
people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant
missiles - blazing hooorahh.
No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes,
would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill
him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.'
What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian
strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious
cake as consolation?
LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't
help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money
when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its
so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them
of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the
most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure.
It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO
GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
@all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
---
The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch
Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo
likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.
Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation
by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover,
the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing
number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply
large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm
Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what
it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against
coercive removal.
smoothie X2 82
Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press
that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost
effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese
designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique
, secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners
may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.
The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest
that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that
this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential
election in the South.
For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both
of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors
(Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal
circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite
to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be
in South Korea.
The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will
be front and centre in the campaign.
Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.
Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American
soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember
that Osprey crash a couple months back?
oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified
in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't
have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the
years.
South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays
a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing
or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans
of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.
Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their
cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South
Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding
further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea,
but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.
I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.
i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean
people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the
possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors.
can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think,
as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean
compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow'
southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.
who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew
that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ...
the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the
us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.
treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in
many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change
now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch
with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.
now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in
the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet
to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just
what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.
atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that
take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.
Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird)
will have to pack up his toys and go home.
I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North
was/would be total desaster.
It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist
systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.
German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach"
policy.
The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally
South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already
changed. But the US managed to create a
security
conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for
North Korea.
Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source
seems to be posting figures for 2015).
Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections
of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this
gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship
with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question
of who holds power in South Korea really is.
Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to
me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.
The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun
(e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken
towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you
never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly
discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.
SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday
filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.
Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists
gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before
submitting the constitutional appeal.
According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment
violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.
Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one
THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement,
Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about
the THAAD installation.
Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision
was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs
and the presidential office.
The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was
no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national
security council of the presidential office.
"The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for
dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society,
an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.
So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.
The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its
national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.
It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely
lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how
dearly they need all that 'protection'.
Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?
(on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up,
but rather willing to up the ante...)
Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on
the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen'
(from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!
The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So
now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!
(President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)
Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.
b
I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although
I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards
Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more
saints in the WWII period than the US.
I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic
and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008.
Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker
he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official
end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other
deals.
For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably
will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.
According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster
the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.
This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders
mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of
the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.
I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to
me that could only have been fomented there.
Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and
CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to
keep US puppets in line.
yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in
the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was
just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything,
up until thaad.
@162, sb,
maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality
... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these
days.
@167 curtis
they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination.
the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly
not for koreans, north or south.
@170 gravatomic
i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down
: she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ...
and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.
I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree.
I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well
that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this
particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation
just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.
I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much
more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that
the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here
on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people
about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very
poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most
of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation
coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation
against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support
it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it
here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,)
it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars
and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again
if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this
moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.
@158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.
The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of
spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going
the way of Iraq and Libya.
was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it
just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to
happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't?
if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights
... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.
it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china
and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese
- not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned
about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?
here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.
whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
'star war' redux ?
by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --
lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.
well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest
market.
hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.
anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2
memorial ceremony in 2015.
mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.
so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring'
etc ?
Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault
of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.
There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving
a green light to:
China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether
in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html
The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.
Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come
here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.
Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at
the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original
sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.
I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not
less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely
their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?
The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle
of it.
By Doug Bandow
April 13, 2017
It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose
Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population,
the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United
States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small,
impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.
Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically,
fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where
it does not belong.
Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II.
Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's
loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during
the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism
fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.
But that world disappeared long ago.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose.
The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness,
and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of
Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need
for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start
shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.
The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S.
withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled
weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American
commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent
American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence
of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.
South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing
past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s,
when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas
was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as
yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.
Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home
U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation
with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors
expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops
remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and
highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers
to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.
So why is America still there?
One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance
that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II."
Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic
aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula.
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern
neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good
deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.
More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner
that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason
the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional
forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well
as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and
defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South
Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.
Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently.
The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer
of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles
and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop
(and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as
some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The
South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.
But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere.
American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and
everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.
South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A
renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United
States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but
fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would
be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands
of lives and trillions of dollars.
Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable
nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for
a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive
retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the
North's threats.
But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct
its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's
reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support
for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might
actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear
umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.
Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from
staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear
parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts.
The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness
to act.
A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence
supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider
those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea
is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing
has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible.
And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on
non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give
if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent
Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed,
absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical
disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.
As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others
don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as
dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover,
small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by
big powers.
The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America
can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country,
where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation
in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing
on its own two feet.
@172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience.
Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.
Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle
of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.
I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though.
Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial
retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I
get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views
of a few people I talk to in SK though.
What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack
on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression.
Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US
that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book.
However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional
testimony.
Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of
Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional
fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty
categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide
of jews, gypsies and others.
Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not
openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly
the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick
ready, just in case.
the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy'
a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their
summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...
The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their
northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did
a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well
stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign
policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased
tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering
to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.
Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
Gavan NcCormack
Gregory Elich
Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to
the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula
Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it
down.
Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear
research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send
assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this
provocation ??
Wikileaks,
Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs
"We don't want
a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The
U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.
Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly
reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees
'.
The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the
suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".
It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may.
It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would
do anything.
"... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
"... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
"... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
"... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
"... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
"... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
"... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
"... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
"... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which,
the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack
that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.
As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right
wormhole.
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible
for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist
and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was
staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad
the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.
Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream
media.
On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned
how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government
had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr.
Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.
One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing
the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the
test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that
perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into
attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated
Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.
When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing
to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting
to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons
in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.
As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald
Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."
It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't
spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use
its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with
any success.
While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger
interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing
on his turf, where he excels.
Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the
main arbiter of truth.
While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard
eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.
Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the
election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible
and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon,
would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)
300 Words
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone
with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely
that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels,
rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything
to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons,
which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those
fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret.
Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April
17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi
Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr.
Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to
the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative
were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks
at a non-alt right site like
https://consortiumnews.com/
can easily confirm. And of course a highly
respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two
notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about
the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -
but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
400 Words
@for-the-record
Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying
seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by
the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.
To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that
it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the
not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing
to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still
had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer
the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical
weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from
Newsweek
today (April 17) via Yahoo News:
ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
The author tells us that
Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad
had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the
effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream
media.
The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were
only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a
non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And
of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published
not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence
Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and
amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.
I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate
alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine
(US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only
about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria
(and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years
that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to
be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a
months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der
Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama
handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to
explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is
is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq
and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted
to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the
deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis
and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
official story, not only about this incident but the general story about
what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that
anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be
getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points
harder than most US outlets.
Don't
ever
trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months
long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing
exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about
what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how
horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure
to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I
looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative
from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this
simply can't be said for mainstream media)
I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel
daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the
US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US
unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a
dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.
I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and
the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to
the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal
with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and
the important motivations and differences between them that colour their
commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that
what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately
obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM
looks like InfoWars and is scary.
It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned
helplessness like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok
Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh
dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting
any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a
direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great
again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was
an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more,
poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!
It all went south
of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with
Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping
bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as
MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein.
Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one
was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre
after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been
done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan).
There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular
Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about
that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with
neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the
assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A
bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic
mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years
of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.
The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still
hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in
humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American
people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one
knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in
Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war
profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries
to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.
Also VIPS had
American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit
something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous
intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a
proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US
media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is
going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with
Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be
more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.
If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's
relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American
establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've
turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to
weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and
Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is
protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad
behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US
media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to
support Putin against his enemies.
Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian
proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the
preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who
its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep
the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims
of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what
this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People
were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an
emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats
conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while
making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination.
Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right
could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in).
What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the
holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted
for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did
would risk losing their job.
The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put
behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even
bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the
line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied
to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being
whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian
government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why
the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across
the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and
praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war
into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely
wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the
US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable
politicians.
How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a
war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and
call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting
Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the
defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer
space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on
these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over
outer space instead.
'Words Are Also Deeds':
Unverified Stories and the Growing Risk of War With Russia
The US narratives for which there are as of yet no facts could lead to
direct military conflict between Washington and Moscow.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Nation contributing
editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their
weekly discussions of the new US-Russia Cold War.
April 13/14, 2017 "
Information
Clearing House
" - "
The
Nation
"- Cohen argues
that the American political-media establishment has embraced two fraught
narratives for which there is still no public evidence, only "intel"
allegations. One, "Kremlingate," as it is being called, is that Russian
President Putin ordered a hacking of the Democratic National Committee
and disseminated e-mails found there to help put Donald Trump in the
White House. The other is that Syrian President Assad, Putin's ally,
ordered last week's chemical-weapons attack on Syrian civilians,
including young children. A third faith-based narrative, promoted by
MSNBC in particular, is now emerging linking the other two: that Trump's
recent missile attack on a Syrian military air base was actually a
Putin-Trump plot to free the new American president from the constraints
of "Kremlingate" investigations and enable him to do Putin's bidding in
matters of US national security.
Cohen points out that in
addition to the absence of any actual evidence for these allegations,
there is no logic. The explanation that Putin "hated Hillary Clinton" for
protests that took place in Moscow in 2011 is based on a
misrepresentation of that event. And why would Assad resort to the use of
chemical weapons, thereby risking all the military, political, and
diplomatic gains he has achieved in the past year and half, and
considering that he had Russian air power at his disposal as an
alternative? And the emerging sub-narrative that Putin lied in 2013, when
he and President Obama agreed that Assad would destroy all of his
chemical weapons, is based on another factual misrepresentation. It was
the United Nations and its special agency that verified the full
destruction of those weapons, not Putin. (This allegation is clearly
intended to discredit the one important act of US-Russian cooperation, a
vital one, in recent years.)
The Russian adage "words are
also deeds" is proving true, it seems. Trump's missile attack on Russia's
ally Syria, despite its ramifying dangers, may have had a domestic
political purpose-to debunk the narrative that is crippling his
presidency, that he is somehow "Putin's puppet." If so, Cohen adds, the
American mainstream media, which has promoted this narrative for months,
is deeply complicit. Meanwhile, the Kremlin, which watches closely as
these narratives unfold politically in Washington, has become deeply
alarmed, resorting to its own fraught words. The No. 2 leader, Prime
Minister Dmitri Medvedev, declared that US-Russian relations have been
"ruined," a statement Cohen does not recall any previous Soviet or
post-Soviet leader ever having made. Medvedev added that the two nuclear
superpowers are at "the brink" of war. Considering that Medvedev is
regarded as the leading pro-Western figure in Putin's inner circle,
imagine what the other side-state patriots, or nationalists, as they are
called-is telling Putin. Still more, the Kremlin is saying that Trump's
missile attack on Syria crossed Russia's "red lines," with all the
warfare implications that term has in Washington as well. And flatly
declaring the mysterious use of chemical weapons in Syria a
"provocation," Putin himself warned that forces in Washington were
planning more such "provocations" and military strikes. In short, while
the Kremlin does not want and will not start a war with the United
States, it is preparing for the possibility.
No
Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Cohen and Batchelor ended their
broadcast as Trump's new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had just
arrived in Moscow, before his talks with Russian leaders began the
following day. (Whether or not Putin himself would met with Tillerson, or
only Foreign Minister Lavrov, was still uncertain. Putin may be an
authoritarian leader, the "decider," but influential forces in and around
the Kremlin were strongly against Putin meeting with an American
secretary of state in the immediate aftermath of such a US
"provocation.") Whatever the case, Cohen thinks Tillerson's visit is
vitally important, at least for the Russian leadership, and for Putin in
particular.
Tillerson is well known to Putin
and other Kremlin leaders. On behalf of ExxonMobil, he negotiated with
them one of Russia's largest energy deals, which would grant access to
the nation's vast oil resources beneath frozen seas. Putin personally
approved the deal, which oil giants around the world sought. He would not
have done so had he not concluded that Tillerson was a serious, highly
competent man. (For this achievement on behalf of a major American
corporation, Tillerson too has been slurred as "Putin's friend" in the
American media.) The Kremlin will therefore expect candid answers from
Tillerson to these questions related to the looming issue of war or
peace. Are the fact-free narratives now prevailing in Washington the
determining factor in Trump's policy toward Russia? Are they the reason
Trump committed the "provocation" in Syria? Does this mean that Trump no
longer shares, or can support, Russia's essential strategic premise
regarding the civil and proxy war in Syria-that the overthrow of Assad
would almost certainly mean ISIS or another terrorist army in Damascus,
an outcome that the Kremlin regards as a dire threat to Russia's own
national security? And, most fundamentally, who is making Russia policy
in Washington: President Trump or someone else? Putin, it should be
recalled, asked the same question publicly about President Obama, when
the agreement Putin and Obama negotiated for military cooperation in
Syria was sabotaged by the US Department of Defense.
The answers that the very
experienced Tillerson-he had his own corporate global state department
and intelligence service at ExxonMobil-gives may do much to determine
whether or not the new Cold War moves even closer to the "brink" of hot
war, certainly in Syria. Meanwhile, the American mainstream media should
return to their once professed practice of rigorously fact-checking their
narratives with an understanding that words are indeed also deeds.
Previous
installments, now in their fourth year, are at
TheNation.com
Stephen Frand
Cohen is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at
Princeton University and New York University.
The views expressed in this
article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
"... Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE. ..."
"... The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques." ..."
"... Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this . ..."
"... According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious." ..."
"... What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about. ..."
Peterlin's appointment to run Tillerson's office was
announced more authoritatively by the Washington Post on February 12. There her Texas Republican
Party credentials were reported in detail, but not her expertise in signals, codes, and cyber warfare.
"Peterlin has a wealth of government and private-sector experience. After distinguished service
as a naval officer, she graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit [Texas and Louisiana]. She then went to work for House Majority
Leader Dick Armey [Republican, Texas], just days before the 9/11 attacks. Afterward, she helped negotiate
and draft key pieces of national security legislation, including the authorization for the use of
force in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and the legislation that established the Department of Homeland
Security. 'She's very substance- and policy-focused. She's not necessarily a political person,' said
Brian Gunderson, a State Department chief of staff for Condoleezza Rice who worked with Peterlin
in the House [Armey's office]. Following a stint as legislative counsel and national security adviser
for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Peterlin moved over to the Commerce Department, where she
served as the No. 2 official in the Patent and Trademark Office."
Peterlin's appointment triggered a lawsuit by a group of patent lawyers and investors against
the Secretary of Commerce. On July 23, 2007, two months after Peterlin was sworn in, papers filed
in the US District Court for the District of Columbia charged that Peterlin's appointment violated
the Patent Act of 1999 requiring the Director and Deputy Director of the Patent Office to have "professional
experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin, the lawsuit charged, "lack[ed] the
requisite professional experience and background." The court was
asked to order a replacement for Peterlin "who fulfills those requirements." Six months later,
in December 2007 Judge James Robertson dismissed the case on several technicalities. Peterlin's lack
of professional skill and alleged incompetence were not tested in court. Peterlin didn't last long
in her job and left in 2008. Peterlin's career publications focus on computer and internet surveillance,
interception, and espionage. She started with a 1999 essay entitled "The law of information conflict:
national security in cyberspace." In December 2001, with two co-authors, she published a paper at
the Federalist Society in Washington entitled "The USA Patriot Act and information sharing between
the intelligence and law enforcement communities". It can be read in full
here .
Peterlin argued "the unalterable need for greater information sharing means that the U.S. no longer
has the luxury of simply separating law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Separation is a security
risk." Peterlin's conclusion: "Who performs the surveillance may also matter, but the conditions
of the performance are of the most critical importance the focus of attention should be principally
on the techniques by which intelligence is gathered domestically and not on whether other members
of the intelligence community are permitted to view the intelligence gathered as a result of those
operations."
After she left the Patent and
Trademark
Office in 2008, Peterlin became an employee of the Mars family companies with the job title,
"technology strategy officer". That lasted six years, before she went into business for herself at
a consulting company she called Profectus Global Corporation. There is almost no trace of that entity
on the internet
; it appears unrelated to similarly named entities in Hungary and Australia. Peterlin then joined
XLP Capital in Boston in November 2015.
Peterlin's appointment as managing director of the firm, according to XLP's press release, reveals
that when Peterlin was in the US Navy she was a cyber communications specialist. She was also seconded
by the Navy to the White House as a Navy "social aide" when Hillary Clinton was First Lady.
XLP didn't mention that at the time Peterlin was hired, she was also a board member at Draper
Labs, the Massachusetts designer, among many things, of US missile guidance systems and the cyber
weapons to combat them. According to XLP, one of Peterlin's selling points was "extensive experience
with administrative law as well as deep operations exposure to Federal agencies, including the Departments
of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services." For deep operations,
read cyber warfare.
Before Peterlin joined Tillerson two months ago, her employer at XLP Capital was Matthew Stack
(below). In his internet resume Stack reports he is "an accomplished computer hacker and cryptanalyst,
and has written and advised on state-run network cyber-warfare policy, and agility-based strategic
combat. He was recognized in 2009 by Hackaday as one of the top 10 most influential hardware hackers."
At Lambda Prime, Stack claims credit for two cyber warfare projects in 2013 – the practical, "weaponized
virtual machines with heterogenous nodes for unpredictable and agile offensive fronts" and the theoretical,
"Clausewitz, a modern theory of grand strategy for cyber military forces, and the role of guerilla
cyber tactics". The following year Stack
hosted
his first "Annual Hackathon" - "Hackathoners flew in from all across the United States to inhabit
a 27 acre, early 1900s mansion that serves as the Lambda Prime corporate headquarters".
On social media Stack has revealed his involvement in internet hacking operations in Kiev; also
which side he was on. "Ominous clouds hang over Kiev's central square, like Russia over its post-Soviet
era neighboring Slavic states, " Stack
instagrammed
to his followers. "The country may be a mess, but Kiev has the fastest internet I've ever clocked
– now I know why so many hackers live in Kiev. Thanks to my amazing tour guide @m.verbulya."
Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified
into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both
of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks
release last month of the Central Intelligence
Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE.
This was developed for the CIA's Remote Devices Branch; the leaked files for the UMBRAGE operations
date from 2012 to 2016. The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library
of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but
also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques
were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data
destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques."
Some of the UMBRAGE
components date
from 2012; most from 2014. A leaked memo dated June 19, 2013, reveals one of the UMBRAGE managers
telling others: "As far as Stash organization, I would recommend that you create one larger "Umbrage"
project, and then create separate repositories within that project for each component. Then there
is one central point on the site for 'all things Umbrage'."
Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents
have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the
US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson
endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read
this .
According to another
report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source
code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA
documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious."
Yesterday Tillerson claimed to make "a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with
the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections are conducted. That is one use of
cyber tools. Cyber tools to disrupt weapons programs – that's another use of the tools." With Peterlin
prompting by his side during his meetings with Lavrov and Putin, Tillerson knew this was not a distinction
US cyber operations against Russia make.
What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these
operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance
of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done
at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for
Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about.
Peterlin's and Stack's public records are two reasons why none of this is secret from the Russian
services. That's another reason why in Moscow yesterday Lavrov would not look at Tillerson during
their press conference - and why Putin refused to be photographed with him.
This is not very reliable source belonging to Donbass separatists ...
Notable quotes:
"... 95% of the world's terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA T ..."
"... with this in mind. If the CIA have Russian blood on their hands, they will forever regret stirring the Russian bear from its peaceful slumber." ..."
"... Putin also suggested that the CIA could have played a hand in the bombing of the St. Petersburg Metro ..."
"... an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order. ..."
"... The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests ..."
"... Claremont Review of Books ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... New York Times Book Review ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West ..."
"... fact-based appraisal of Putin and his times ..."
"... There's a lot to be said for Robert Steele's ideas on Open Source EVERYTHING and Electoral Reform. Mr Steele also claims that Chuck Schumer, Lyndsay Graham, Marco Rubio and John McCain are being blackmailed into going along with deep state policies. ..."
" 95% of the world's terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA T he St. Petersburg metro bombing must be investigated
with this in mind. If the CIA have Russian blood on their hands, they will forever regret stirring the Russian bear from its
peaceful slumber."
Vladimir Putin - President of the Russian Federation
April 6 2017.
During an extraordinary meeting, Vladimir Putin - the President of the Russian Federation - has accused "the US 'Deep State' and
the radical Islamic groups they sponsor" to destabilize key regions in the world. Putin also suggested that the CIA could have
played a hand in the bombing of the St. Petersburg Metro.
Speaking at a behind closed doors forum for the highest echelons of government and staff in his home city of St. Petersburg, Putin
responded to questions about the metro blast. When questioned by a top aide as to whether the '95% figure' was accurate, Putin answered
that:
"The CIA is a rogue element of the deep state, and an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a
New World Order.
The evidence is everywhere, and I personally have intimate knowledge of their dealings.
The CIA exists today as part of America but it is certainly not American. The CIA does not work on behalf of the American
people or act in their interests ."
Christopher Caldwell is a graduate of Harvard College. His work has appeared in the Claremont Review of Books , the
Wall Street Journal , the New York Times Book Review , the Spectator (London), Financial Times
, and numerous other publications. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and
the West , and is at work on a book about post-1960s America.
Caldwell has recently penned a very interesting piece -
How to Think About Vladimir Putin - which was adapted from a speech he delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College
National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona. Please, take the time to read this fact-based appraisal of Putin and his times
.
"Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are
all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember,
although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that
does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics."
"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our
times. As our last election shows, that's true even here."
Former CIA Robert Steele: "US Politicians blackmailed by the Deep State"
There's a lot to be said for Robert Steele's ideas on Open Source EVERYTHING and Electoral Reform. Mr Steele also claims
that Chuck Schumer, Lyndsay Graham, Marco Rubio and John McCain are being blackmailed into going along with deep state policies.
"... * A Carthaginian peace is the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' achieved by completely crushing the enemy. The term derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize and pay a constant tribute to Rome and could enter war only with Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War, the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population. ..."
The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) is a book
written and published by John Maynard Keynes.[1] Keynes
attended the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 as a delegate of
the British Treasury and argued for a much more generous
peace. It was a best-seller throughout the world and was
critical in establishing a general opinion that the
Versailles Treaty was a "Carthaginian peace*". It helped to
consolidate American public opinion against the treaty and
involvement in the League of Nations. The perception by much
of the British public that Germany had been treated unfairly
in turn was a crucial factor in public support for
appeasement. The success of the book established Keynes'
reputation as a leading economist especially on the left.
When Keynes was a key player in establishing the Bretton
Woods system in 1944, he remembered the lessons from
Versailles as well as the Great Depression. The Marshall
Plan, after the Second World War, was a similar system to
that proposed by Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the
Peace.
--------------------
Did the Marshall Plan not improve things in Europe!?!?!
* A Carthaginian peace is the imposition of a very
brutal 'peace' achieved by completely crushing the enemy. The
term derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome.
After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies,
was forced to demilitarize and pay a constant tribute to Rome
and could enter war only with Rome's permission. At the end
of the Third Punic War, the Romans systematically burned
Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population.
---------------------------
The financial crisis and terrible recovery was a disaster
forced on the voters of advanced nations. Is it any wonder
that there was a populist backlash? The spoiled, pampered
center-left like Krugman, Hillary and PGL have no idea of the
suffering that many voters and citizens had to endure, losing
their homes, etc.
The problem for Russia is that Trump secured China neutrality in voting in Security council beforehand.
Notable quotes:
"... The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag. ..."
"... I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims: ..."
"... There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up. ..."
"... In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious. ..."
"... Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration. ..."
"... The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now . ..."
"... I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not. ..."
Just as Tillerson sat down for talks, a senior Russian official assailed the "primitiveness
and loutishness" of U.S. rhetoric, part of a volley of statements that appeared timed to maximize
the awkwardness during the first visit by a member of Trump's cabinet.
"One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level,
has not improved but has rather deteriorated," Putin said in an interview broadcast on Russian
television moments after Tillerson sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an
ornate hall .
Moments earlier, Lavrov greeted Tillerson with unusually icy remarks, denouncing the missile
strike on Syria as illegal and accusing Washington of behaving unpredictably.
"I won't hide the fact that we have a lot of questions, taking into account the extremely ambiguous
and sometimes contradictory ideas which have been expressed in Washington across the whole spectrum
of bilateral and multilateral affairs," Lavrov said.
"And of course, that's not to mention that apart from the statements, we observed very recently
the extremely worrying actions, when an illegal attack against Syria was undertaken."
Lavrov also noted that many key State Department posts remain vacant since the new administration
took office - a point of sensitivity in Washington.
One of Lavrov's deputies was even more undiplomatic.
"In general, primitiveness and loutishness are very characteristic of the current rhetoric
coming out of Washington. We'll hope that this doesn't become the substance of American policy,"
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russia's state-owned RIA news agency.
"As a whole, the administration's stance with regards to Syria remains a mystery. Inconsistency
is what comes to mind first of all."
####
I don't see the point of Trump firing TLAMS only to play nicey-nicey with Moscow in public.
So in short, are the public and private messages the same? As for Russia, their message should
be clear (and it is) " No more 'fun' or WE are done ". The only role the West can play
is that of a spoiler , particularly in Syria. They have absolutely nothing to gain even
if their tame media claims they do. Everyone should keep their pants on and not be rude – including
you NS!
Trump seems to have reasoned that all he had to do was release the dreaded American cruise missiles
and Putin would roll over submissively and expose his belly. He has a hell of a lot to learn about
foreign policy, and I don't think he's going to have the time to learn it.
Her impudence pales into insignificance when compared with that of Tillerson, who has flown to
Russia in order to issue an ultimatum to the Russians on their own territory.
When he finished his speech, Lavrov politely said in English to the impolite United States
journalist : "You may shout now".
It was reported in Russian that he said to her: "Теперь можете кричать, если хотите", which
literally translates as "Now you can shout if you want to", which in English sounds less polite
(it does to me, anyway) than what he actually said politely but with irony, in that he politely
invited someone to continue to act in an uncultured fashion.
I am pretty sure Mr. Lavrov is aware of the adage that Americans "don't do irony".
The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores
the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared
for any eventuality.
As regards the impudent US hack that was shouting; I think she is your typical loud, ignorant
and obnoxious US hack.
A Department of Defense spokesman discounted an Associated Press report that claimed Russia
knew in advance about the chemical weapons attack in Syria last week that left more than 80 people
dead.
"I've seen nothing that corroborates this definitive statement," Major Jamie Davis told the
Daily Caller in a statement Monday. "We continue to review the available intelligence surrounding
this incident."
Though Davis noted that the DOD is continuing to assess the details of the situation, he noted
they have found nothing so far that could verify the AP story .
A senior administration official in the White House also cast doubt on the AP report.
####
So unlike the anonymous intelligence source that did not have ' authorization to speak to
the media ' quoted by AP, here we have an official sources calling BS. Does that make the
AP piece Fake News or 'in the interests of the American public'? F/tards.
I think it is fairly clear that sensationalist leaking is part of the strategy balanced by
later rowing back or dismissing, knowing that the Pork Pie News Networks cannot resist it. It's
a balance of sorts that is aimed to keep the PPNN and others off-balance. Again, these are just
words, not actions. We also see the same method over the earlier reports that a USN CVBG was steaming
towards North Korea, now we are being told that it is not and is just in the general area. It's
a pattern:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that
he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control,"* a belief he appeared to rest on
the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they
have threatened to.
"I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet
he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that
they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes .
Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official"
today delivering a briefing* to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel
offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas
for operational purposes
On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had
already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared
well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels
####
I'm surprise they even bothered with a new narrative. The PPNN had it already well covered
with their numerous conspiracy theories so the Administration has only unnecessarily muddied the
waters here.
Interesting collection of reports on what happened with the chemical weapons attack on April 4,
including Robert Perry, citing sources within U. S. intelligence and military:
The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different
outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts
knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag.
I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was
a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians,
contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of
the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that
this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't
have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims:
1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started
more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and
deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming
operation.
2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that
the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
The dedicated phone line would have been part of the deconfliction agreement between Russia
and the U. S., started soon after the Russian began military intervention in fall 2015. If it
is true that the U. S. knew about the planned target long ahead of time, then the fact that McCain
took a secret trip to Syria recently becomes even more sinister.
Whatever chemicals (not sarin)
were used were planted at the warehouse, or simply released nearby at the time of the airstrike.
As for the photos and videos from the White Helmets, etc., those were probably produced ahead
of time, on a Saudi or Qatari or Turkish production stage, for all we know.
This theory would give another dimension to the fact that Russia suspended the deconfliction
agreement immediately after the Tomahawk attack.
This is what I'm inclined to think – that some element(s) within the Trump Administration ensured
those charming basket-weaving, flowers-in-the-hair-wearing, kumbaya-singing 'moderate' rebells
knew an air-strike was planned and left it to them to arrange the chemical exposure.
Exactly. There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed
the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up.
In fact, the US was bombing to disrupt SAA operations and really protecting ISIL. I do not know why Russia agreed to share any such operational
details. This looks like an epic fail by Russia. They just needed real time coordination to prevent
collisions in the air.
The US has called its attack on an airbase in Syria "a strong signal" for the Assad regime.
Legal experts, however, criticized the action. In an interview with DW, international law expert
Stefan Talmon explains why.
####
More at the link.
In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International
Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters
for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?).
The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in
Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asked his European counterparts on Tuesday why American
voters should care about the conflict in Ukraine, France's foreign minister said .
French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Tillerson had openly questioned why "American
taxpayers" should be concerned about Ukraine, which has been racked by a separatist conflict for
the last three years
####
Another PR stunt designed for domestic consumption.
If God had any sort of a sense of humour at all, G7 leaders would break out in painful boils every
time one of them used the phrase 'rules-based international order' in a manner which implied the
G7 nations give a flying fuck about obeying international rules which do not permit them to act
as they please.
I just made the mistake of watching 'BBC World News'. There was a report by their Moscow Correspondent
Steve Rosenberg who said "Russia intervened in Syria to keep Assad in power". No nuance, no other
details such as I-rack, Libya etc. descending into chaos and spreading terrorists, weapons & refugees
in to Europe, let alone Chechen and other terrorists who would head back to Russia fully trained
or that the IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH was allowed to grow on the West watch and Russia intervened long
after Syria descended in to hell.
That the BBC continues to employ a tabloid correspondent like
Rosenberg all these years shows how seriously they take their reporting of Russia. Very poorly,
very poorly indeed. He's the Luke Harding of the broadcasting news. A f/kwit. And f/k the BBC
too.
Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders
in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as
it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved
him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration.
Yet the USA
propped him up over and over, and no attempts to unseat him enjoyed any kind of success until
Washington decided he was no longer useful. Then suddenly the winds of (regime) change began to
blow, and *poof*, we had the 'Arab Spring', and all American politicians of whatever stripe suddenly
became conscious that the dictator they had propped up for 30 years 'must step down'.
The group
which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful
and prosperous western-leaning market democracy
Egypt is now .
I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is
that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change
colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and
he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American
meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or
not.
You are the typical Anglo-Saxxon who has been fed Propaganda, and who
thinks he knows what great Fighters are made off. You are wrong, you
didn't have any of that sort for a looong, looong time -- Why ? Because
you are evil, your wars are evil since a looong, loooong time. There are
no great Warriors in the Army of evil, only slime, rubbish, filth. Those
who aren't cannot be part of really and usually die a very unkonwn,
unspoken of death.
A Lion, a Wolf know fear, because not having it is
bad for survival, as you will soon find out yourselve.
How old are you ? I guess you are older than twenty. I have bad news for
you. If you don't even know such extremly basic fundamentals what else
could you know ? 'Know How' probably, which makes you the perfect Slave,
Soldier, Ork, Zombie.
Aggression – Fear are the result of the same mechanism, the
examination of a social situation intra- or inter- species. The resultant
reaction is usually beneficial for survival, else it will just dissapear
over time.
The Russians know what it means to have a real modern War at hand, an
experience which you never had, Your experience comes from phony
Hollywood crap. The Russians experienced total War, a term you have no
faculties for, only the Germans and Russians have. The Germans were
transformed into plastic, jew hailing dolls, while the Russians learned
really from the experience. They prepare large underground shelters for
the Civilians in the large Metropolitan areas (Having a Subway is also
not bad), but more importantly their mind is focused, they ready
themselves in the mind. You can see some of it's quality in the civil war
in the Donbass. These are men types and women completly alien to a dumbed
down Westerner fed up with lies. In comparance to them you are just junk,
trash. One of them outweighs 20 of yours easily. Would you know what you
are fighting for ? The only feasible reply could be, yes we plan to kill
our Leaders. Now that said, do you know where strength comes from, first
and foremost ? A pure god abiding soul !!!!!! Any TRUE Warrior will fear
war, because he is concerned for the weak, for himself and even for his
enemy. The strength you are talking is not strength at all, but weakness.
You are the type who at first occurence will use barbaric force onto the
innocence (Civilians, Surrendering Enemies) we know you inside out. Your
strength is to be brutal and barbaric, only that's no strength at all but
weakness. It only makes the enemy stronger, his resolve will increase
indefinetly. In a total War that means defeat for you without exception.
Your Leaders know this or knew this, thus they planned their wars very
carefully in advance, striking only when risk was minimal (WWI & WWII),
because you couldn't withstand a prolonged real war spiritually, in war
all domestic lies are uncovered the nearer you get to the frontline.
Your posting was literally a poem, a profound one, painfully
truthful and excellent.
The part you where you wrote:
Now that said, do you know where strength comes from, first and
foremost ? A pure god abiding soul !!!!!! Any TRUE Warrior will
fear war, because he is concerned for the weak, for himself and
even for his enemy.
Was particularly poignant and reminded me of the Hindu scripture,
the Bhagavad Gita, representing the exact attitude of the main warrior
Arjuna on the eve of battle.
Are you Russian? Did those ideas you wrote down in your post come
from the Russian culture and represent a portion of Russian ethos or
does it come from some other culture (Chinese or Japanese). It would
really be valuable for our understanding if you could answer this.
@Spartan
You so do not understand a thing. Spartans fought to the last breath,
because as someone said they had to protect their land and the families.
This is why some people say " Molon Lave – come and get it" they did not
say "we run now". They understood that this was their last stand. And
this is called "ultimate sacrifice".
Saker is so correct in what he
says, and you do not have to agree with him, because you haven't had to
stand when bullets were flying around you. The truth though is: you do
not hear the one coming for you. How I know it? From my father who did
his share of fighting in WWII.
Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production,
on self-reliance. As Putin noted, "Thanks, couldn't have done it without you"
So, how is this for left field
I agree, the US and China are economically interdependent.
Trump wants to make America great again. Wants the jobs and the factories back. So, why not 'fry'
China. Nuke Nth Korea, declare war on China after either a false flag or China retaliating.
Then, as an enemy state, confiscate all China's assets in the US and repudiate any debt to China
via Bonds etc. WTF is China going to do?
Smile a lot???
America is then forced to make things again, and getting rid of a few trillion in bond debt will
help economically I expect.
Concentrate on internal production and consumption.
Oh yes, it is all a lot more complicated than that .. but think about it .. interesting scenario
And it would fit in with Trumps child-like simple view of the world.
We are still essentially a group of nation states, basically at war because each state only acts
in its own interests. Until we can work together as a common humanity, war seems the only way to
resolve differences.
You may need to educate your self with some simple facts: 18.3% of Chinese export goes to US and
15% of US export goes to China. Anything happen to trade with US will hurt, but Chinese can Manage.
US can frozen Chinese asset, and Chinese will hit where it hurts. There are plenty of American
finial products in China and China will have her pick.
Like Germans said to Trump, "We are not a nation without means, and we will fight back!" I
have yet see China fail to retaliate any so called punishment from US.
I fail to see why a smart people like you running with some one who is not living in this reality.
TYS, you are wrong on one thing: The Chinese political apparatchiks are not idiots like their
European, American and Russian liberal counterparts. You forget that credit inflation and deflation
can be controlled by the CCB at will. It's a balance sheet operation in the accounting department.
Bad debts can be cleared (bonds of economic useful actors can be bailed out – parasites like 90%
of bond holders can go tits up) if need be. It's true that in the confines of neoclassical economic
thinking an operation like that is unfathomable, but it is still just a technical operation which
has to be executed in a planned manner. In contrast to the so called "free market in the West"
the Chinese government has the means to get all necessary actors to comply and the ability to
get the necessary information. The shadow banking system in China is a much bigger problem, once
again not because the assets cannot be restructured, but because of the lack of control and, in
some cases, the integral part they play in the Chinese economy.
Many make the faulty assumption that money is somehow an integral part of our physical reality
– it's not. A social unit of account, claim on work, the materialised form of consolidated power,
is a necessary illusion to keep humans devided in a hierarchical power structure. This has nothing
to do with physical laws, which cannot be manipulated. Humans can do whatever they want with the
stored energy in form of atom bonds to electromagnetic radiation. If it means they want to push
some electrons in the CB mainframe to get society to keep believing in real or electronic paper,
they can do it. BTW the US debt was created though the transfer of reserves at the CB into an
interest bearing asset e.g. treasuries. Translation: the Chinese swapped their reserves at the
FED for treasuries. The US cannot default on its currency because its the SOLE issuer of it. It
stupefies me to no end that the myth of a US default in DOLLAR is still discussed seriously. On
the other hand, Chinese assessts in dollars are at a real risk. They CAN drop in value if the
US were to create more dollar denominated credit with which it would buy up REAL assessts and
not fictional wealth f.e. at the stock market.
There are no economic laws. There is only an established social system which is very profitable
for a few and is the legacy of a previous power struggle.
@ Nachtigall: Well put! The US put it's neck in the "reserve currency to the world" noose at Bretton
Woods. An imperial overstep, the Daffy Duck in Aladdin's Cave moment "MINE MINE, ALL MINE!!!"
I agree that the Chinese leadership are not idiots, I don't believe I ever said they were.
I repeat, the Chinese are not going to throw away their ability to gain access to western technology
and corporations (or destabilize, any further, their social systems by disrupting their export
oriented industries) by doing anything stupid like threatening the US with their current Empire
currency & debt holdings. So I agree with you, I don't think the Chinese leadership are reckless
idiots: that's my point.
Have you forgotten that the Chinese economic growth has nearly halved even based on
their faked inflated "official" 6.5 % GDP growth figures (their actual growth figure is between
3-4%)? They are not operating from a position of strength.
Gold reserves, during a trade war, will not give the Chinese access to the Western technologies
and assets they desire.
Someone mentioned a scenario where the US will declare war on China in order to tear up their
debt obligations to the Chinese and seize Chinese assets in the West. Why would they need to do
that? One can easily make the counter argument: the US can provoke China into doing something
wreckless and then default on China. Isn't that what the close shore patrols the US performs along
China's coastline designed to underscore?
Again, a very good point was brought up in the article, President Xi needs to do more than
behave like a smiling Buddha: they continue to let Russia does all the heavy lifting (and dying).
Let's see if they do finally step up to the plate, – I don't believe they will.
I agree with you. They are very cautious not to upset their dollar apple card, as you've rightly
pointed out: the Chinese worked themselves like slaves to get this mountain of dollar reserves.
I once picked up the rumor that the Russians tried to convince the Chinese to drop their dollar
reserves on the market in 2008-2009 so as to crash the dollar, but again this would have meant
shooting themselves in the foot. The US doesn't give s* about its debt, they don't have to default
on anything because its their currency! So you're right the US could provoke China into doing
something rash. Indeed China is very much an export driven economy, and they will absolutely do
jack to threaten their position by getting into a military confrontations with the US. How do
you even, like the Saker points out regularly, deal with war mongering freaks like the US officials?
The US is itching to destroy its competitors by any means necessary.
The crucial point I wanted to make, and this is what I mean by not being idiots, is that they
know how they should play the capitalist game of smoke in mirrors, they know that the debt bubble
in thw real estate sector is unsustainable, they know that they inflate GDP numbers, but here
is the BIG difference (to eurocrats f.e.): If the real estate bubble pops the CB can bail out
all useful actors and let the bad ones go bankrupt. It can create yuan at infinitum. It would
send initially shock waves through the economy, but depending on the prudent restructuring of
all the debts the economy can resume on working again. This is what no Western bureaucrat would
dare to think – when they bail out something, it's parasites like JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank,
Goldman and large funds, never small time debtors f.e. home owners. As I recall, Micheal Hudson
talked about how Sheila Bair (EX FDIC Chairman) did suggest that you should save real people (depositor's
money) instead of bank balance sheets, and that the FED was able to do that (a small summary of
her views with a lot weasel words and smoke:
https://jrc.princeton.edu/news/sheila-bair-former-fdic-chairman-discusses-financial-crisis
).
This subject is much more complex than everything said by us, but I understand why Chinese
officials refrain from doing the rational thing of restructuring the debts right now; i think
they speculate on the fact that as long as the economy is growing they will continue to build
cities, ports, planes, buy out western companies and infrastructure till the bell rings. After
the process of consolidation I described they will reinflate the credit bubble again. They try
everything at the same time. Reining in the shadow banking system, slowing down credit inflation
and than restarting it again and letting the economy grow etc. China is trying to establish its
very own yuan vacuum cleaner by which they can buy up (real!) assets like mines, factories etc.
all over the world.
That is the perspective of the capitalist class (not to speak of silly name calling like"communists"),
take another viewpoint esp. in terms of the eco-system and all of this is a big fat net loss.
They once tried to measure their "Green GDP" but quickly stopped doing that after it became apparent
how much "natural capital" was destroyed each year.
All of our terminology, definitions, ethics are sloppy and misleading by design if we talk
about who decides what, when and who gets what, when and how much.
Very well put. Thanks for elaborating in detail. I agree the very premise of "currency" based
systems are virtualized models and artificial. Hudson's work is very revealing, I agree.
@Nachtigall
Very well put, but may I add that the 'economy' is an expression of energy; past, present and
future and we (in the west anyway) have borrowed rather heavily from the future. We can print
as much money as we want but we cant print energy, well not yet anyway.
China has hedged its exposure to US debt by accumulating gold.
When the US dollar crashes, gold will soar and the effect may well be beneficial to China even
if they initiate the crash.
It's the USA that is between a rock and a hard place.
Yup, China and Russia are divesting US$-based reserves, using those artificially inflated US$
instruments to buy physical gold at artificially deflated market prices literally hundreds of
tonnes/year.
Meanwhile the US has to buy/steal gold from other countries, bought about 220 tonnes from Canada
to give about the same to Netherlands in the "rehypothecated WW2 safe-keeping gold repatriation
scam", plus steal from Libya and Ukraine to do the same for Germany and France. The hegemon is
in a weak position when the vassal states don't trust them to hold their physical gold and can
demand it back.
Russia and China have already set up an alternate international currency/exchange/trade system,
using yuan-renminbi/ruble plus accommodating other local currencies. The only-US$-based WTO/IMF/World
Bank/BIS/SWIFT/etc. system can be bypassed if the US/Rothschilds decide to attempt any M.A.D.
economic tactics.
Yes I agree. Accumulating gold seems to be part of their plan. If the USD crash for whatever reasons,
the rise in the price of gold will at least cover up for the loss in value of USD assets. I think
China has enough gold to be now more than ready to dump USD assets; and the US knows this. This
means that China can survive a crash of the USD but USA will not. That's why Trump is talking
nice to Xi. Neither will the US survive if the USD is manipulated too high through interest rates
by the Fed.
The United States Reserve hold 8 times as much gold as China's. So where does your argument
go now?
If we include the BS internet rumor that China has unofficial holdings of an additional 9000
tonnes raising their total seizable holdings to 10,000 tonnes that is still dwarfed by US private
holdings. Europe has comparable reserves in private and central bank hands. Finally, the country
with largest gold holdings in both in govt and private hands is India, at approx 20,000 tons.
Just look at the yearly production of gold in China, the gold that never reaches the market. The
official Chinese reserves of 1,000 tones are nothing compared to it. Coupled with official Swiss
mints data of gold export to China in the last 10 years, and you are coming really close to BS
internet rumor numbers.
When was the last time that US gold holdings were audited? Do you know that US had 24,000 tones
of gold in 1945? They reduced their holdings for more than 15,000 tones from 1945 to 1971, and
after that they didn't reduce it for an ounce?
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it had collected intelligence that purportedly proved
Syrian forces had carried out the deadly chemical weapons attack in the northern Idlib province
that led to the U.S. missile strike.
"We reject any accusations to this effect and would like to remind everyone that Russia has
been the only country to demand an unbiased international inquiry into the circumstances of the
use of toxic chemicals near Idlib from the very start," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
The meeting between Tillerson and Russian President Vladimir Putin came after hours of tense
exchanges, with both sides staking out positions that were sharply at odds. Russia made it clear
it was unwilling to roll back its strategic alliance with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The talks appeared unlikely to bring any significant breakthroughs after last week's missile
strike plunged U.S.-Russian relations to one of the lowest points since the Cold War.
[U.S. reveals intelligence disputing Russian claim about Syria chemical attack]
But despite the growing rifts, some general compromises were discussed.
Sam Coates,
Deputy Political Editor | David Charter
April 12 2017, 12:01am,
The Times
One senior Tory described the outcome of the G7 meeting in
Italy as a humiliation for Boris Johnson and Britain
Boris Johnson was left embarrassed last night after his
demands for fresh sanctions against Russia over its backing
for President Assad of Syria were publicly rebuffed by
European allies.
The final communiqué after a two-day meeting of G7 nations
in Lucca, Italy, made no mention of the foreign secretary's
proposal to isolate Vladimir Putin and impose sanctions on
Russian military figures.
Italy and France rejected Mr Johnson's position, and one
senior Tory described the outcome as a humiliation for
Britain.
The comments came as Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of
state, flew to Moscow to confront the Kremlin over its
support for Assad after a gas attack last week that led the
US to respond with missile strikes on a Syrian airbase.
Why is it interpreted as 'backing down'??? Sounds to me Putin is the only reasonable grownup in
the room and realizes how quickly things can spiral out of control towards war.
I, too, take issue with the headline "PUTIN BACKS DOWN," but my complaint is with Breitbart. It's
as if they're trying to stir things up by acting just like the MSM. It would have been wiser to
just say "Putin Reverses, Meets Tillerson." BTW I like the Sam Crow handle.
You read my mind. Why does Breitbart bash Putin with a headline of "backing down" when
Putin meeting with Tillerson is exactly what Trump and Bannon would have wanted? It's important
not to beat up on people who are engaging reasonably and diplomatically with our administration.
Tillerson and the globalists/neocons/deep state better back off this dismantling of the Assad
regime if his boss Trump is saying there won't be any more action in Syria.
David I think Trump is going for peace through strength. Obama has turned half of America into
apologist pacifists - and just look at the state of the world after Obamas lead-from-behind approach.
A MESS !!! Trump is asserting leadership.
It's also very important no to look like Putin caved in to Trump. He must look strong and "save
face" at home to his people. Making him look weak is silly and foolish, childlike.
It's all about Clicks...
You have to Create Tension to Create Interest...
So they create Tension even where there is none...
Breitbart makes their living selling conflict.
That's what makes it Interesting
""World Peace Achieved -- Everyone is Happy !" doesn't make anyone scared, worried or pissed...not
that we will ever see that headline...
You're probably right, from Breitbart's perspective. That's sad because it's a big mistake. Breitbart
readers are annoyed by misleading hype. BTW - love your posts.
breitbart got a lot of free publicity in this last campaign cycle for so roundly supporting trump,
now trump's won, and bb is one of the most "trusted" news sources for Trump, even if only via
bannon.
They should really try to elevate themselves above click bait if they want to be taken seriously.
And no, not MSM serious, ACTUAL serous. IE: do some damn journalism and stop feeding trolls and
generating click bait.
In an interview today, Russian President Vladimir Putin reported that the level of trust
with the United States on a day-to-day, working basis began getting worse after Trump took
office. This is a surprise, as the Kremlin had welcomed Trump's election and was expressing high
hopes for improved relations.
Of course, those improved ties never came to pass, with the administration abandoning plans to
ease sanctions on Russia shortly thereafter, and backed off more or less all the stated plans of
shifting US policy in Syria toward a focus on ISIS, which culminated last week in the US
attacking the Syrian government outright.
While the Obama Administration of the last few years was every bit as hostile toward Russia as
the Trump Administration is, they never presented themselves as anything but hostile. Putin's
comments suggest Russia had high hopes for rapprochement with Trump, and the dramatic reverse by
the new administration had badly eroded Russia's trust in anything they say.
Denmark's government is proposing amending legislation to allow it to ban pipeline projects
on the grounds of foreign and security policy, due to concerns raised by Russian efforts
to build a disputed gas pipeline through Danish waters.
"We want to have the possibility to say yes or no from a perspective of security
and foreign policy," the minister of energy and climate, Lars Christian Lilleholt, told
Reuters, adding that it was currently only possible to veto such projects on the grounds
of environmental concerns .
Denmark and Sweden earlier this year requested that the European Commission intervene
in Nord Stream 2 before the two states agree on permits for the pipeline to pass through
their waters. EU diplomats said there was little scope for either nation to block the plan.
The current regulatory framework does not allow Denmark to say "no" to the construction
of transit pipelines in territorial waters on the basis of foreign policy considerations,
the ministry said in a statement .
EU sources have said the Commission, sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis
to block approval of Nord Stream 2, is delaying it as long as possible .
Denmark's right-wing minority government would now negotiate with other parties to
win support for the proposal.
####
' sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis to block approval..' – Well that's
quite a polishing of the EU turd when we
know
that the EU has no legal way to block
the pipeline, sic the opinion of the EU's own Legal Service. How delicate the EU stuffed
suits are that they cannot just admit it outright. Oh, but that would be a propaganda victory
for Russia. They should be grateful because if they had blocked it, it would have been a
very clear message that the EU's
Rule of Law
which it proudly pronounces around the
world is barely a fig leaf that is dropped as the slightest political pressure. It's a joke
already, but with a project as big as . as it has done with much political decisions
While they're creating magic out of whole cloth, why not a law that anyone who discovers
significant gas deposits anywhere must immediately hand them over to the EU for their exclusive
use and disbursement? Or a law that orders massive new gas deposits be discovered in Denmark?
I suspect that the government is having a slow news day and as there is absolutely no consequence
to Russophobia as it is essentially a free gift that keeps on giving when and wherever is
needed, i.e. to distract from domestic politics.
The Whole G7 'How can we f/k up Russia further' conveniently segues with the improvement
of Russia's economy and the continued failure of G7 sanctions against Russia. I'm not really
sure what else they can do without shooting themselves in the foot.
There's already been some whinging that the West's actions have only further driven it
in to China's arms, so WTF? I guess they have to come up with something that looks tough,
but isn't. After all, they will need to put out a key statement signed by them all. IN short,
'This spade is far too small. Let's go and get another one!'.
Thanks, NATO. Most people would learn from their 'mistakes'. But not NATO – it can't wait
for the next empowering liberation in the name of freedom and democracy.
The governor of Ukraine's central bank, Valeriya Gontareva, has resigned the post
after three years, following intense pressure from tycoons whose banks she shut down for
conducting illegal transactions and loans.
Meanwhile her personal wealth after 3 years in chrage of Ukraine's finances (read: of the
Western donors money) MYSTERIOUSLY increased to 7 blns of hryvnias and entire squadron of
luxury cars (from 3.5 mln hryvnas upwards each). What can I say?
Здобулы!
If Ukraine's central bank chief needed any more incentive to quit, last week she woke
up to find the image of a pig draped in a Russian flag spray-painted onto the wall of her
house and a gaggle of young protesters calling her a Russian stooge.
After a sustained hate campaign that also included a coffin laid at her door, Valeria
Gontareva finally quit on Monday.
Her departure, with no obvious candidate for a successor, leaves President Petro Poroshenko
with one fewer ally in power at a time when lenders keeping Ukraine afloat already question
his ability to follow through on promised reforms .
Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter
and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most
important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic
facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus
and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered
to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also,
the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and
ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its
S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also,
the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.
The chemical attack
The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident
was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.
"It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been
planned well beforehand," he said.
"For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been
made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's
spokesman added.
Cooperation with Pentagon
The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents
in Syria.
"We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum
on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space,"
the ministry's spokesman said.
"The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation
of the memorandum."
"To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will
be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed
forces' air defense system," he added.
Syria' losses
US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
"According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed
and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and
other equipment have been destroyed.
"The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes
in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
"The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman
said.
Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase
On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk
Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack
came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4.
The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.
If there is some connection, it will come out after some time. Comey said there was an FBI investigation
into Russian interference in the election. The former National Security adviser Flynn wants an
immunity deal.
But the liberals like PGL have certainly gone hysterical in that it reminds me of McCarthyism.
They'd rather talk about the traitors than why Hillary lost the election to a buffoon. Samantha
Bee joked that the Russian hackers who spread fake news in Midwest swing states had a better game
plan than Hillary.
The center-left cant' believe they lost to Trump. So they focus on Russia, the external enemy.
The Trump Organization subsisted for years off Russian oligarch money and his campaign and administration
are lousy with people paid directly by them for political activities including his son.
And you wonder "if" there is a connection? Bless your useful heart.
I am going to bet that you are Hillary email scandal denier. And worse -- clueless jingoist,
who get your all foreign policy information from the CNN and then uncritically regurgitate this
neoliberal propaganda here.
Each of us has a set of positions, and there should be some level of respect of them despite
differences, because it is the debate that gets us closer to the truth.
And it is a required behavior for those, who like you continuously try to show up your university
education, despite the evidence to the contrary that that their posts often produce.
The real sign of the university education is the tolerance toward the opponents. It is badly
lacking in your behavior in this forum.
Looks like
John O. Brennan
, then the CIA director was a very important player in creating anti-Russian hysteria. Who put
a lot of efforts is fanning the "Russian threat" meme designed to suppress Hillary email scandal and
DNC revelations. some senators such as McCain and Reid also played a role:
"Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a "double standard" in reviving
the Clinton investigation while sitting on "explosive information" about possible ties between
Russia and Mr. Trump."
I suspect that this is more of an attempt to unite the
divided nation (and, especially, the Democratic Party), in
which the majority of population now rejects official
ideology of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. With
trust in official institution such as Congress, at
dangerously low levels. And rumors (aka "fake news") rampant
due to lack of trust in discredited official media channels.
Proliferation of rumors ("improvised news") as Tamotsu
Shubitani noted in his book (
https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-News-Sociological-Study-Rumor/dp/0672511487
) is a definitive sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the
ruling elite and/or dominant ideology of a given society.
Sign of growing level of distrust.
War hysteria is a proven cure in such circumstances. It
also helps to suppress Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.
Susan A. Brewer is Professor of History at the University of
Wisconsin-Stevens Point book, Why America Fights: Patriotism
and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq, told a
fascinating history of how the US elite has conducted what
Donald Rumsfeld called "perception management" on the US
population:
== quote ==
10. WE FIGHT TO STOP ANOTHER HITLER. There was only one
Hitler, but he lives on in wartime propaganda since World War
II.
9. WE FIGHT OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT HERE. In
this message, America typically is portrayed as a pastoral
land of small towns, not as an urban, industrialized and
militant superpower.
8. WE FIGHT CLEAN WARS WITH SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. This
message suggests that U.S. troops will not be in much danger,
nor will innocent civilians be killed in what is projected to
be a quick and decisive conflict.
7. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. A traditional
theme of war propaganda since ancient times, it is
accompanied by compelling visuals and heartrending stories.
6. WE FIGHT BRUTISH, FANATICAL ENEMIES. Another classic,
it dehumanizes enemy fighters.
5. WE FIGHT TO UNITE THE NATION. Here war is shown to heal
old wounds and unify the divisions caused by the Civil War,
class conflict, racial and ethnic differences, or past
failures such as the Vietnam War.
4. WE FIGHT FOR THE FLAG AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
STANDS. The trend has been to emphasize the flag over the
republic. The more flags on display, the less likely the
people's elected representatives will debate foreign policy
or exercise their power to declare war.
3. WE FIGHT TO LIBERATE THE OPPRESSED. When the oppressed
resist U.S. help, they appear ungrateful and in need of
American guidance especially if they have valuable resources.
2. WE FIGHT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. During the
Philippine War, for example, this message advised that Uncle
Sam knew what was best for the little brown brothers.
1. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Although
the American way of life stands for peace, it requires a lot
of fighting.
== end of quote ==
So it like the real goal of current warmongering hysteria
is to unite the nation in general and Democratic Party in
particular against the common enemy, using Russian threat as
a scapegoat.
This also helps to preserve the grip of Clinton
(neoliberal) wing on Democratic Party, because after Hillary
momentous fiasco, in normal circumstances, all of them need
to go and be replaced with Sanders wing appointees.
"That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council
who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt
with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical.
That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."
The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael
McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who
was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.
Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job
and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.
McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered
in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.
But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could
have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are
preposterous, they say.
"Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good
at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize
that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American
political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government
was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."
National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials
have handled the Russia issue poorly.
Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.
And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during
the transition period when Obama was still president.
Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a
whiff of Russia is out of control.
"It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump
or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There
is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be
an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing
the target."
National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations,
potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his
successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
"The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them,
more often than not they'll do it back to us."
McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers,
accused of fomenting revolution.
"I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans
to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S.
Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent.
Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is
dangerous."
It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors,
according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.
From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke
the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even
basic levels.
"Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really
creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's
an actual major challenge from them."
Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program
director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.
"It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars,"
Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes
the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.
"Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not
striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations
with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit
this." Tags Jeff Sessions
Line was the case during McCartyism, when mass hysteria grips the USA it becomes a powerful and destructive
material force. Kind of a new type of explosive device.
It would be very fanny, if it is not so tragic for a country to descend into some king of
pseudo-religious trance...
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria ..."
"... This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria. ..."
"... But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone. ..."
"... But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should. ..."
Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding
it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria
So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security adviser before he got busted talking
out of school to Russia's ambassador, has reportedly
offered to testify in exchange for immunity.
Trump has stuffed his Cabinet with tyrants, zealots and imbeciles
– all bent on demolishing our government from within
For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This is it! The big reveal!
Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk
into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.
He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps
even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump agreed to downplay
the obvious benefits of an armed
proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin's help in stealing
the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.
I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't
seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters
paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?
What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral
sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's
construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the
Glenn
Beck-style
far-out
charts with the
circles and
arrows somehow all make sense?
This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the
one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing
has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.
Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's
history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered
on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.
One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused
of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media
circles in recent weeks.
The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks
Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times
and HBO's Real Time, has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.
She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a
Russian partisan") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom ("agents
of influence") to Glenn Greenwald ("Russian
shill") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also "Russian
shills"), tothe 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted (really,
she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents
in the New York field office ("moles").
And that's just for starters.
Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior
of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes,
asked
"what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.
Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott
wondered why
reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might
be "unwitting" agents!) and
noted, without
irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.
Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight
of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or
does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?
I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing
that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump
in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the
treatment.
I've been "outed" as a
possible paid
Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian
"agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington
Post once relied on for a report that
accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the
election season."
Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul
balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that
"the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."
Even Bernie Sanders has himself been
accused
of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late,
asking, "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"
So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people
of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.
Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially
pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.
Former NSA chief Keith Alexander
spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic
Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents"
and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.
This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown
"precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an
interview with TheTimeson the Russia subject a month back, there was a
thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.
Warner furthermore told TheTimes that in order to get prepared for his role as
an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy,he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs,"
and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."
This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy (Tolstoy!)
to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.
Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated
him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem
to trouble Americans very much. Here's the
key exchange, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:
SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
COMEY: I don't.
SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.
(Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both
Comey and Speier got it wrong.)
As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg
noted, this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian
espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil.
It's bizarre, to say the least.
Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed
by news stories in liberal outlets like Saloninsisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced
by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."
These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots
pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various
murders and money laundering schemes."
Some
13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does
any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?
I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of
factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for
Sanders himself.
To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil
Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity
for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.
If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list
of reasons why some
155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton
last year, they're farther along down the
Purity of Essence nut-hole
than Mark Warner.
Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame
implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying
from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting"
cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be
in trouble.
Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic
candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded
that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.
Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided
to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans
will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't
become an effective political trope going forward.
But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate
dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.
Last week saw
Donna Brazile and
Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling
seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, "dogs
and cats, living together."
But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps
on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried
Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl
Harbor," as Cardin put it.
That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time
when both countries have troops
within "hand-grenade range" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in
such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This
is what happens when people lose their heads.
There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more
important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.
But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic
congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find
later, as in, "If
we do the investigations, we will find the connections."
But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And
if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.
Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.
And on the other hand here is a video with Jimmy Dore and Josh Fox about the breathtaking decline
and servile desperation for corporate money of MSNBC
here and
here .
Well, hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though
their privileges are at risk.
Michael Hudson explains that the Senate hearings on Russia are an effort by Democrats to
torpedo improvements in Russia-US relations and lack any real evidence of Russian meddling
William W Haywood
•
2 hours ago
He builds his story around Clapper being a truth teller? UNBELIEVABLE
idiocy when you expect me to believe this crap!
Seer
•
5 hours ago
Two top US experts on Russia, Professor Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern
(ex-CIA analyst) and Robert David Steele (ex-CIA0 and Bill Binney (ex
NSA) ALL state the Dems accusations are ALL BOGUS. I tend to believe
them rather than mainstream media and wonder if RN is going mainstream
soon?
Marko
•
6 hours ago
" Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere "
Nowhere involving Russia ,
perhaps , but they're leading somewhere involving the U.S. :
They're leading to the uncovering of an illegal political
witch-hunt , probably on the orders of Obama , though Rice will likely
take the fall. Said fall should include jail time , but we all know
that elites don't "do" jail in the U.S. , unlike in the less-advanced
democracies , like Iceland or S. Korea.
Jon Henri Matteau
•
7 hours ago
Really, this collusion is what is harming any US Russian relation,
that and the Ukraine issue. If there wasn't an issue, sit back and let
the investigations prove it. We had NINE redundant investigations into
an exaggerated scandal. what are people afraid of if this is pursued?
weilunion
•
8 hours ago
They are designed by the deep state to lead to nowhere but destraction.
Octavia Bee
•
9 hours ago
Oh my--how does Hudson know there is no evidence? Does he have some
sort of top-secret security clearance? It's also curious how Hudson is
so supportive of Putin, who is a horrific dictator.
He's obviously another deluded Trumpster. Why would this man be given
the role of an expert? Sad!
Donatella
Octavia Bee
•
8 hours ago
More empty rhetoric from the McCarthyite Democrat party. The
Democrat party did not allow the government to inspect the server
that was "hacked". Instead they used the information from a private
company that depends upon them for income. So we really don't know
if it was a hack or a leak by a Democrat insider like Seth Rich.
Obama was more of a "horrific" leader killing tens of thousands of
innocents than Putin. Anyone calling him a "dictator" is just
either parroting talking points or is uninformed.
Donatella
Wallace
•
7 hours ago
As usual you are mindlessly parroting neocon or
Democrats talking points. Putin won his last election
with 63% of the votes cast. And yes, the oligarchs
stole Russian wealth under Yeltsin with the help of the
U.S. Yeltsin would have lost his reelection if it had
not been for the intervention of American help. You
should take your own suggestion and read some history.
The only reason Russia has not experienced high growth
is because of the U.S. imperial financial sanctions.
The U.S. also pushed Russian into a closer alliance
with China, which the U.S. will learn to regret. The
U.S. is on a long-term decline and the 21st century
will see a rising China and Russia.
And yes, his annexation of Crimea by a 90+ vote by
the Crimean voters (majority are Russian) is a good
example of Putins populist strengthening of Russia.
Better than letting the neo-Nazis in Kiev take over
what has been Russian territory and give NATO a
military base.
Raoulfr des Roches
1
day ago
Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI
and The CIA have both implicated the
Russians in interfering in the American
political process.
Geral Hammonds
1
day ago
Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering,
meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only
the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH
206 guy
1
day ago (edited)
timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a
central intelligence agency just because
they're the central intelligence agency.
Fucking sheep's.
Natalia Jensen
1
day ago
timmy turner Not only are you a
brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're
also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left
libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.
"... What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. ..."
"... they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. ..."
"... What's more, our American partners are not abandoning the programme of deploying weapons in outer space, and they are essentially alone in voting against the initiatives co-sponsored by us, China and many other colleagues to commit not to do so. ..."
"... The Americans refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is also an important strategic stability factor. And of course the global missile defence system has an absolutely direct impact on strategic stability. ..."
"... Another point: imbalances in conventional weapons, which are also being modernised very quickly. ..."
Question: US President Donald Trump, in a recent statement,
unexpectedly proposed revisiting the issue of reducing strategic arms as a platform for bargaining.
Should strategic nuclear forces today be a subject of negotiations with the Americans or would it
be advisable at this point to put them outside the bounds of Russian-US relations?
Sergey Lavrov: To a very large extent, President Trump's position on the majority
of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons
as you've mentioned, has yet to be finalized. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned
the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared
to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded
by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually
beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control.
At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build
up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new
administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent.
As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such
a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors
without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as
soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely,
ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced
on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place
in military science and technology.
What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear
strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with
the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more
humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect.
However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect
will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb.
What's more, our American partners are not abandoning the programme of deploying weapons in
outer space, and they are essentially alone in voting against the initiatives co-sponsored by us,
China and many other colleagues to commit not to do so.
The Americans refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is also an important
strategic stability factor. And of course the global missile defence system has an absolutely direct
impact on strategic stability.
Another point: imbalances in conventional weapons, which are also being modernised very quickly.
We always begin our dialogue with NATO by stressing the need to restore normal relations. We
propose normalisation and agreements on mutual verification measures but before that, it is necessary
to sit down and look at what each of us has deployed in proximity to each other, as well as in the
entire Euro-Atlantic region. There are a lot of factors that need to be considered if we want not
simply to ban nuclear weapons as idealists, but to ensure peace and security in the world and ensure
strategic stability that will be sustainable and based on global parity. Everything that I've mentioned
needs to be discussed. I may have missed some other factors.
I should also add that restrictions imposed by Russia and the US on each other have reached a
point where it is hard to say that we will be able to do a great deal together anymore. All states
that have nuclear weapons should be brought in – importantly, not only those that have them officially
but also de facto.
The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the
most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine
Trump. But some comments are interesting
Notable quotes:
"... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
"... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
"... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
"... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
"... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
"... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
"... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
"... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin.
But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants,
undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America.
Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed
view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level,
and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly
trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and
then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next
colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no
choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing
facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly
can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has
to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.
Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The
Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me
Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on
Facebook and
Twitter.
Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years
of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey,
a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?
Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that
he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of
course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling.
And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.
The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious
Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently
as is polite. Like real fucking soon.
What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said
there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!
That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other
hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.
Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting
to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies
in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.
Don't
pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on
the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .
Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that
The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but
enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!
Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the
expense of virtually everythingelse so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a
shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.
Dr.
Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to
it's history and it's progress post communism.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach
millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
http://www.infowars.com/show
"... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
"... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
"... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
"... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
"... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at
bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street
leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach ("
Don't
Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own
") then you know something is seriously out of
whack.
Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ...
I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's
been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)
It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from
folks who should be wiser.
The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services,
including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging
perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
A distrust in institutions and the news media.
The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost
personal social-media branding.
Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information
bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or
should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named
Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other
qualifications.)
It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed"
Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.
When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial
things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.
If you want to see how the DNC reacted
to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom
Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London
School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is
when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.
The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying
helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already
won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you
on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks
who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the
present and being surprised when the end comes.
lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the
world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming
someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of
the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US
democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any
heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
"Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin
ploys ..."
_____________________________
Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that
it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".
That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state
mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on
insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and
overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated
"fifth column" sympathizers and
de facto
operatives to nefariously influence
Western public opinion, etc.
But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also
sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral
process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high
dudgeon and self-righteousness.
How
dare
some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy
represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely,
any
radical criticism of these
governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can
only
be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate
faith and trust in their political leadership!
Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cœur, stripped of its
high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us
look bad
!" It is to laugh!
This phenomenon induced a feeling of déjà vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel.
Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging
social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political
leaders' feet of clay.
Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers
like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller
for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic
institutions".
It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft"
authoritarian-submissive doctrine.
The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to
maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at
their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some
insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous"
campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:
"Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive
actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties
with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in
this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"
"Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward
an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security
[Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General
Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our
Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to
international information security have been adopted unanimously.
"Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report
that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly
expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific
cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is
beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.
"I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of
all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit
themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So,
alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the
SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also
distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects
of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that
it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the
elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose
penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see
how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style
of James Bond will respond to this.
"There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet
governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet
and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A
very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding
free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the
internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this
context, serious debate lies ahead.
"We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce
some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect
any results yet."
There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further,
although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War,
Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition
for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question
regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:
"It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU
countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily
written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral
processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot
even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as
Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact.
We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with
German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister
Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a
frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they
show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be
artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting
media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide
facts."
Anyone here read the
"Russian Democracy Act 2002"
enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of America?
Section 2, Finding and Purposes:
(3A)
Since 1992, United States Government democratic
reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including
training, and small grants have provided access to and training
in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian
citizens to the United States, and
have led to the establishment
of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
, thousands
of independent local media outlets, despite governmental
opposition, and numerous political parties
.
(Unquote)
More than 65.000 NG0s
established in Russia by the US-Government from
1999-2002? What a crazy number!
And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In
the tens of thousands the figure must be.
But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not
only US)?
Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.
Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant.
Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real
war.
NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite
people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28,
2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000
troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of
war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving
out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and
to maintain diplomatic ties.
The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They
were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of
Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!
The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises
from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition
cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear
exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not
democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.
Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking
the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as
seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or
international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces
locally.
Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western
democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled
by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of
the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an
act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian
information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid
war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of
hybrid war.
The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of
Salon
is
totally delusional!
Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues
to be waged today...
Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle
were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's
invasion...
Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's
attacks for him...
Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of
Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and
betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake:
Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans
against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake
news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more
suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's
goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the
outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago
and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?
This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings
inside the White House...
That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential
appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and
concentrating on the fight against Russia.
Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can
work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran
and North Korea in their sights.
If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take
the blame for US boots in bodybags.
The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US
control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced
it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of
Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before
attacking Iran.
A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and
remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their
plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?
That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to
rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far
from the only victim of such.
Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two
years ago
At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising
for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of
Syria.
Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your
face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.
Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been
much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the
Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S.
connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the
cabal.
For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more
funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to
strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds
me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans
called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure
they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this
"ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough
I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of
triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will
unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and
details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's
"dream sequence"
It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard
dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but
won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.
Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin
Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I
fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on
her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been
in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or
editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh --
Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom:
WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017)
.
TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.
DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our
homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"
whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them
on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and
into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.
confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?
at this late stage in the 'game'?
there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and
demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian
hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!
what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there
are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of
us!
replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among
ourselves.
it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.
no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum,
initiative.
* we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our
paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.
I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their
every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a
continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.
What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America
while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its
sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?
You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating
this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a
snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is
unfolding as I was convinced it would.
One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all
governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national
corporations ????
It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called
Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in
December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such
interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.
Trump hate
is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to
think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that
returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right.
I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party,
a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.
They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now
and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil
salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently
does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump
and
the DNC crowd.
I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes
regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman
Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.
Anyone
who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and
still
thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American
imperialism is a fool or an idiot.
It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.
1) Trump is
NOT a proponent of
Assad must go!
.
Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want
total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the
Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.
2) Trump is anti-TPP.
This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off
destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies"
prefer.
3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former
Presidents, etc.
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a
nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry
Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way,
the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire
to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly
short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding
Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive
example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and
separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself
and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist
domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet
purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.
Excerpt from
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions
during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff,
Moscow, March 23, 2017
Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for
the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really
blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every
criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't
everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at
respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?
Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof;
it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington,
specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.
...
4) Drain the Swamp
Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that
constrain money-making.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37
Trump's inaugural Drain The
Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily
sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about
his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long
before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a
confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to
keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty,
dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be
unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our
lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt
both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict
now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We
face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose,
and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and
transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward
steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation,
on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.
Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on
peace in the world
, he only threatened
the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the
democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with
the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From
wiki:
He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian
oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]
Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued
words.
Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that
concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in
Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media
will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for
example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me,
this could be very interesting information.
h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23,
2017
Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)
Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a
stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump
as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the
theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who
pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)
Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we
think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is
Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?
Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:
Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself
asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know?
What evidence? What message?
The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high
road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly
consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings
along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons
harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you
believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.
Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to
send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that
Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and
identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any
politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President
Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by
Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be
impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as
well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to
make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.
karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being
educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end:
What will
Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision?
Now I know this has outraged
many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign
Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face
I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the
table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.
The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest
destiny, exceptional people ect.
In looking up the various missiles systems and
aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian
defence systems.
US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue
until it is destroyed
Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of
speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected
because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness.
Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America,
over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."
Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.
A BIG clue as to what
motivates them.
Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all
rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good
side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.
So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in
solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left
aisle will surely represent as well.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39
I won't go as far as disagreeing
with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so
relentlessly anti-Trump.
Logically that means a few things.
1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.
If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was
no other choice -
it was Clinton or Trump
. No one else was going to win that
election, saying
"I don't like either"
isn't an answer and is a failure to
acknowledge reality.
2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is
so awful he must be replaced asap).
Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would
prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is
your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader?
Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that
you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE -
someone else!
Nope. Forget it.
At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me
- you prefer Pence then?
If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need
someone else
I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you -
What are YOU going to do
about it?
Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else
installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not
worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.
It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to
Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to
interrupt you.
Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48
It's interesting isn't it.
Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.
But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their
complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is
exactly what they want!
- The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get
the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.
Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when
they were in a huff.
Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.
You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better
to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut
and be thought a fool than open it up and...**
Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?
Address Julian's
questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
A) Clinton
B) Trump
C) Pence
Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally
destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate
mutual assured destruction.
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57
Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29,
2017 3:14:57 AM | 61
D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It
lacks a basis in reality.
There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.
My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless
shit like Trump!
And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's
(admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.
Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over
Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch
of the imagination.
But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the
egotistical narcissist?
Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I
could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.
For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my
initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible
on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand
(like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.
Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your
credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.
Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63
I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a
realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at
the moment in
reality
.
Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good
commentary. Irritatingly so.
Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven
correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from
Trump must admit you're disappointed.
So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it
would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump
out of office.)
>> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike
Pence.
You're not using logic. You're mocking it.
I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of
"logic" that I would prefer Pence's?
That argument is embarrassing.
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a
veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".
But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything
(other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I
read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except
for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would
justify this antagonism, Peter AU.
In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday
April 2, 2017.
Pro-Assange
Lenin Moreno
Anti-Assange
Guillermo Lasso
Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.
Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the
EU).
The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as
bad as each other.
The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.
The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the
Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much
as Le Pen.
Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to
all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.
If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas
supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.
At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance
after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will
be completed by then.
That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.
The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?
Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last
decade for another 2 years.
Dumbass, come up with an alternative
narrative.
JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are
dreamtime stuff.
What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".
Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps
not in the intention of the originator.
1.
the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central
committee
,
2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally
elected either on the ballot by primary voters or
by the state Democratic Party
committee
,
3.
a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity
, and
4. a variety of
representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies
.
1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by
their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial
complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the
people in general ...
don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands
... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by
interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.
@43
probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing
'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez,
g-o-i ...'
Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along
nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are
arguing.
Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump
has to go.
the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.
the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd
and his henchmen do.
So they can whinge about what ever they want to.
secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about
war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US
and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US
unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can
you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they
'don't pay his bill for Nato"?
thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as
any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he
is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will
be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)
fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in
the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of
'influence' people get to have in their countries.
fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and
children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.
and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was
Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.
as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and
frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.
Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN
Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and
integrity.
Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down
each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state
department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean
what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed
and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.
From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep
appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very
much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under
the weight of repeatedly failing realities.
...the difference between a politician and a statesman.
aaaa 13
"It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the
GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and
banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth)
And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony
obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up
for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.
The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people
whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and
the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He
wanted to win and that was all that counted.
Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said
repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him.
Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters
investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million
into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any
investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.
Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in
practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long
before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In
2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the
Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian
investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They
didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either.
The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this
particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the
question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent
investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't,
and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.
Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh
hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian
Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this
climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or
at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where,
when --variety)
@2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many
of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not
offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign.
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran
committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the
caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't
have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a
convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected
Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.
The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed
demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors.
This is how the US does it.
US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato
will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?
/~~~~~~~~~~
Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After
Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...
The ACLU itself has received
massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from
Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that
Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and
millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits
against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation
drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by
buying district attorneys in races across the country.
\~~~~~~~~~~
On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People
Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take
the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the
streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch
the livestream together. Please join us!
Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on
March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend
events near you.
\~~~~~~~~~~
So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against
Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if
they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better?
Consider:
Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the
use of military force in Iraq.
Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.
In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the
Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday
scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a
remotely rational explanation for the known universe."
"[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier
Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out
of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.
I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson.
Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.
Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post
just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just
had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?
@70
Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't
include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just
don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much
attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I
comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I
posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet
with your approval.
Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,
1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump
team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.
2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for
anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.
3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state
try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment
4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that
seeks to rule the world
5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.
If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros.
Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.
1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME
2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is
currently taking place
3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on
them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans
for making America great
4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal
with which they are being rounded up
5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their
safety net is being dismantled
Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well
suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?
Ad hom straight off?
Choices...action...habit...character.
>> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make:
choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist
policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options
not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.
>> What we see is the real world.
Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
>> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
>> A) Clinton
>> B) Trump
>> C) Pence
>> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.
Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited
construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices
are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.
By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't
ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw
inferences about you personally.
There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their
willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview
published today, 3/29, in
National Interest Magazine
: "We said what we did, that
we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the
American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting
leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting
one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the
Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal."
http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445
It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore
box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the
cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...
C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire
government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no
'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make
Clinton an option for Circe?
IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be
piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined,
as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the
right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.
"b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but
Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya
know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great
again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and
ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.
Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I
don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a
fucking liar and an über-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon.
Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell
ya...heheheheh)
I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence,
McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the
wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration
impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there
is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.
The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber
did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular
coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.
"... Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play ..."
Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start
WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign
dictator!
Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play
Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign power to
hack
O my someone helped Assange, someone is accused of putting truth about the CONARTISTS
in DNC to the American people
"... CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ..."
On Friday, WikiLeaks
released
a batch of documents detailing CIA hacking tactics and
how the US agency can divert forensic investigators from attributing
viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the spy agency. One of the
documents revealed that the framework supports the ability to "
add
foreign languages
" to malware, listing Chinese, Russian and
Korean in the example code, indicating the potential for the CIA to
focus attention on another party to be blamed for the hack.
CNN,
however, decided to not cover the story, Gaunt told RT.
"
CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to
Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them
seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the
laughing stock of the news world
," the British commentator and
politician said.
"... in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers. ..."
"... I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. ..."
"... In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies. ..."
"... They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him. ..."
"... A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods. ..."
"... Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The ..."
An awful lot of American liberals have become rather possessed by the possibility that President
Trump is somehow in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The circumstantial evidence that
there is
some
sort of connection is rather strong - Putin very probably helped Trump win in
2016, some Trump associates have a rat's nest of connections with Russia, and Trump himself has been
relying on financing from Eastern Europe for many years.
But definitive proof has yet to surface. So
in their quest to find a connection - particularly
some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense
and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers.
It's important to avoid this not only because clear thinking is important, but because it is the
best way to root out the truth.
I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered
as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia.
Something that is a bit less
remembered is that the Soviet Union did indeed have
extensive espionage
success
within the American government, particularly during the Second World War. They penetrated
the Manhattan Project, they scooped up all manner of non-nuclear weapons technology, they recruited
one of the very top
economic
policy officials
in the country, and on and on.
In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies
had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was
paranoia and hysterical panic
about
such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool
and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he
whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies.
They loved it when he was
falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public
housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking,
his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that
they began to desert him.
A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During
the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of
actual Soviet spies
. But what tiny truth
was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after
McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted
by association with his vile methods.
(As an aside, it's important to note that all of this is orthogonal to the question of whether
Soviet spying necessitated a hyper-belligerent
diplomatic
stance towards the USSR. All countries
spy, America very much included, and in the end all the espionage probably didn't amount to much
- indeed, it may have
actually calmed tensions
somewhat.)
Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during
the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the
basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP
and
bug-eyed
conspiracy hound
who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after
another - and even somehow got
a piece
in
The
New York Times
. And she is only the most prominent of a
cottage industry of instant
Russia "experts"
who have sprung up to
write long tweet threads and create infographics in Microsoft Paint
validating liberals' darkest
suspicions about Trump.
... ... ...
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at
TheWeek.com
. His work has
appeared in the
Washington Monthly
,
The New Republic
, and the
Washington Post
.
"What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel,
Wall Street Journal ]. Why Nunes left
his cab:
Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information
about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished"
intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn
over said documents-with no luck, so far.
Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the
relevant details:
First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained
was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2")
they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump
official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.
To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.
Mr. Schiff's howls about Mr. Nunes's methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well.
It would be interesting to know if this was still going on. And from the other side of the aisle:
Readers, those of you who can endure tweet storms and clicked through, what do you think of these three?
"The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant
of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [
NBC ].
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [
Raw Story ]. You knew this was coming, right? The story is just as sloppy and misleading as the headline. For example: "Over
time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname 'Bernie Bros.'" Note lack of agency in "became known"; #BernieBro
was in fact propagated by Clinton supporters. And then there's this: "'Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge
within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group," said [Retired Gen. Keith Alexander - former director
of the National Security Agency]. "And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.'" Where to begin? Can Alexander really
mean that Sanders and Clinton supporters wouldn't be in conflict if it weren't for the evil Russkis? Or Republicans and Democrats?
I hope when Alexander analyzes Lower Slobovia he does a better job.
David Remnick
,
b. 1958, was Moscow bureau chief 1988-1992 for
The Washington Post
,
before he moved to the magazine. In 1998 he was named its editor.
Lenin's
Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire
won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993.
Evan Osnos
, b. 1976, joined
the magazine from
The Chicago Tribune
in 2008 and covered China for five
years.
Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China
appeared in 2014 and was a Pulitzer finalist.
Joshua Yaffa
is
a journalist based in Moscow. He has written for
The Economist
and
The New York Times Magazine
.
Nothing in the article –
Active Measures: What lay behind Russia's interference in the 2016 election – and
what lies ahead
? – was quite as punchy as the art that accompanied it. The
magazine's traditional anniversary cover featured Vladimir Putin, as a dandy
peering through a monocle at a raging butterfly Trump, instead of the customary
rendering of
Eustace Tilley
. That was non-committal enough, though it reminded me of the
magazine's 2014
Sochi Olympics cover
, a figure-skating Vladimir Putin leaps while five little
Putin lookalikes feign disinterest from the judges' stand.
More alarming was the
art
opposite the opening page, Saint Basil's Cathedral, in Moscow,
administering a jolt of light (a digital illumination ray?) to the White House
from the skies above. The caption states, "Democratic National Committee hacks,
many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western
institutions and alliances."
The article was organized in five little chapters.
In "Soft Targets," Putin orders an unprecedented effort to interfere in the
US presidential election. It is a gesture of disrespect, ordered out of pique
and resentment of perceived US finagling in the 2012 Soviet election, intended
to be highly public.
In "Cold War 2.0," the Obama administration is caught flat-footed by the
campaign and fails to respond effectively. The Russians have adopted a new and
deeply troubling offensive posture "that threatens the very international
order," a former Obama official states.
In "Putin's World," a capsule history of the decline of Russian pride during
the 1990s is presented alongside an argument for the expansion of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. Putin's mistrust of democracy at home is
described, as well as his recoiling from the US invasion of Iraq. Differences
between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the annexation of Crimea are
recounted: she sometimes favors the use of military force whereas he does not.
In "Hybrid War," Russia becomes technically adroit at cyberwarfare and
experiments with a digital blitz on Estonian communications after a statue of a
Soviet soldier is removed; meanwhile the US unleashes its Stuxnet computer
virus on Iran's uranium refinery operations. The Russian Army chief of staff,
Valery Gerasimov, is introduced, along with his 2013 article,
The Value of Science Is in the Foresight
, urging "the adoption of a Western
strategy," combining military, technological, media, political and intelligence
tactics to destabilize a foe, the article having "achieved the status of
legend" as the Gerasimov doctrine, following the invasion of Ukraine. An
estimated thousand code warriors are said to be working for the Russian
government on everything from tapping former Undersecretary of State Victoria
Nuland's cell phone in Kiev ("a new low in Russian tradecraft") to the
forthcoming French and German elections. Finally, the hacking campaign against
the Democratic Party is rehashed, and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
says the interaction between Russian intervention and the FBI "created a vortex
that produced the result" – a lost election.
In "Turbulence Theory," Trump is said to be a phenomenon of America's own
making, like the nationalist politicians of Europe, both the consequence of
globalization and deindustrialization, but Russia likes the policies that are
the result: leave Russia alone and don't talk about civil rights. Meanwhile,
the hacking campaign may have backfired, and Trump may no longer have the
freedom to accommodate Russian ambitions as might have been wished, but at
least Russia has come up with a way to make up for its economic and
geopolitical weakness, namely inflict turbulence on the rest of the world.
Three things about this assessment stand out.
Putin's views of US foreign policy are not integral to the account: they are
presented in two widely separate sections, one on the history of US "active
measures," the other on changes in his opinion wrought by the war in Iraq.
Putin is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, the authors write, but his
opinions, and those of others, especially who compare the invasions of Crimea and
Iraq (where the US immediately set out to build an embassy for 15,000 workers) are
dismissed as "whataboutism
,"
exercises in false moral
equivalence. NATO expansion is more or less taken for granted. The military
alliance's extension to the borders of Russia forms no part of the narrative.
Second, no attention is paid to Putin's problems, aside from a nod to his
suppression of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the rock group Pussy Riot. His
plans for a Eurasian Union, which were at the heart of the Ukraine crisis, go
unmentioned. There's nothing about the centuries-old struggle between
Westernizers and Slavophiles who oppose policies that would tie Russia more
closely to the West.
Third, the history of the Cold War itself gets short shrift. The genesis of the
doctrine of "hybrid war," ascribed to Gen. Gerasimov, is described at length in
The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense
Strategy
, by Andrew F. Krepinevich and, Barry D. Watts (Basic Books, 2015).
Marshall founded the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. In 1973 he described
what would become a dramatic strategic shift:
In general we need to look for opportunities as well as problems; search for
areas of comparative advantage and try to move the competition into these
areas; [and] look for ways to complicate the Soviets' problems.
Many factors led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Active measures," of
the sort propounded by Marshall, were prominent among them. You can hardly be
surprised that the Russians have sought to master new techniques. The underlying
proposition of the
New Yorker's
article is that the world is, or at least
it should be, unipolar, with the US in charge of its democratic values. After all
these years, the Russians still don't agree.
...the classic answer of collapsing juntas is the Malvinas solution:
rally the nation by creating a foreign confrontation of some kind. Usually this involves a
shooting war; but maybe a trade war would serve the same purpose.
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation
campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].
Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to
divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected
and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if
she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and lots of other places.
I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar.
Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several
cocktails.
Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the
institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have
zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and
the sooner the party goes extinct the better.
So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin
agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian
connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin
even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all
the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than
ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.
I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser
evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State
Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its
environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was
also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the
camel's back
I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie
Bros to beriberi
White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs
later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in
american election
but from archangel where about 100 years ago the
only americans ever shot by russians died about 20
there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed
over two years from actual combat correctly
America and russia must always be kept
apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish
Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with
one third its population
Are there and have there been conflicts between the
2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at
the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and
occupied china for a few decades but yes major
countries and with russia spanning three
continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are
part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian
interests to not involve most northern hemisphere
economies
Just as communism and marxism is not some
communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism
If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of
power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big
parades & 365247 as talking head would not be
necessary
If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were
"powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill
"dissidents"
actually i am worried about this. if they can
persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of
associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can
escalate in various directions from a foundational
"russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from
any further effectiveness. the younger generation may
not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is
still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a
war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where
TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it
was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we
are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and
mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left,
with consequences we are still suffering. the more
followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and
frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely
begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only
the beginning of what they will try in their effort to
erase it if they see it escalating.
Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about
is just being worried about "this" so specifically
the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get
what they want. It will take more than Sanders to
stop them, and they will crush quite a few people
along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's
the only resistance then they will certainly crush
his movement and will get their war on.
We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and
in every direction.
agreed. i am specifically worried about the
russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the
rest that you refer to) because i don't see it
being taken seriously now at its inception. i
think it's important to call attention at the
first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which
often evokes from people, initially, laughter and
disbelief.
I was thinking along the lines of an internet
deluge of messages which convey something along
the lines of , " Do you actually think you have
dumbed us down to the point where we would
actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just
gauging how much worse you have to make common
core education and lead levels to get us there?"
Not catchy but something to that effect.
I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece
last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the
majority of commenters have for people who supported
Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information
is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are
poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.
Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about
Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as
fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006
doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New
York where she wound up facing a candidate too
extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points.
Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled
as a consistent drag on down ticket races.
The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was
absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue
states. We are the United states." He was dopey
then. This is largely the result of emotional
investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are
lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't
on TV all the time. They remind me very much of
Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and
stage mom's in general.
*this* - realize the Republican Party, hard
to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are
literally no more to the right of these people
than Sanders is to the left.
So it's not unhinged to treat him just as
badly.
They are OK with US tax levels because they
are comfortably well off, and being more urban
they can see the infrastructure and understand
that it has to be paid for. They are OK with
Obamacare because they aren't subject to it
and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars
because other people fight them. And so on.
I have said before that the millions upon
millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a
social problem going forward. They may well become a
menace.
Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming
armed and trained militias to be able to protect
themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite
mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?
"Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents'
in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw
Story]. You knew this was coming, right?
Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I
suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a
Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I
naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her
immoral family foundation activities, her secret and
lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote
for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for
people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and
reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for
environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events
associated with her private email server. I guess I now
better now. (sarc)
That's no excuse. One must strive to not have
overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us
when we were most needed and in our failings we failed
America. /sarc
Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four
years as SoS would give us no idea how she might
govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe
she was going to do no better than give us more of the
same
And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!)
turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a
BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.
Every time she does her leather lesbian routine,
I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to
come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive
thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing
(in reality - in her mind, I think she still
believes she's going to be President).
And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce
in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying
to pick by doing this.
Look like
Clinton Watt can't (or does not want) to distinguish crisis of neoliberalism in the USA after 2008 and Russian influence. This
is definitely pro-Clinton stance. He discredited himself by stating that Trump tower was wired is "fake
news." It is not a "fake news". After Snowden revelations this is a plausible
hypotheses that needs to be investigated and iether proved
or disproved. This "Putindidit" stance is a very convenient smoke screen for Clinton
supporters.
President Donald Trump aided Moscow's disinformation campaign during the 2016 U.S.
election by spreading false information originating from Russian state-sponsored news outlets and
internet bots, a cybersecurity expert testified before Congress on Thursday.
"Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander
in chief has used Russian active measures, at times, against his opponents," Clint Watts, a fellow
at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told members of the Senate intelligence committee during
the panel's first public hearing on Russian election interference since Trump's inauguration in January.
The charge from Watts, a former FBI Special Agent who tracks Russian influence operations, came
in response to a question from Republican Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who asked why Russian President
Vladimir Putin believed he could get away with interfering in last year's U.S. elections.
"They parrot the same lines," Watts responded, referring to Trump and Moscow. "[Trump] denies
the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged. That
was the No. 1 theme pushed by RT, Sputnik news," Watts continued. "He's made claims of voter fraud,
that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman Cruz is not a citizen."
In some instances, Trump and his campaign team propagated fake stories they appear to have learned
about directly from Russian state media. Last year, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort accused
the U.S. media of failing to cover a terrorist attack against the NATO air base in Incirlik, Turkey.
There was no such attack ― but RT, Sputnik and pro-Russian Twitter accounts
pushed a series of stories suggesting Incirlik was under threat.
According to Watts, pro-Russian Twitter accounts noticed Trump's loose relationship with facts
and sought to capitalize on it. They "tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know
he's online and they push conspiracy theories," Watts testified.
The U.S. intelligence community released a
public assessment in January concluding that the Russian government used a campaign of false
information and cyber hacking efforts to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help
Trump win the 2016 election. There is an ongoing FBI-led investigation into Moscow's alleged efforts
and possible collusion with the Trump team. The House and Senate intelligence committees are conducting
their own separate probes into the matter.
While the Kremlin appeared to favor Trump in the 2016 presidential election, there are indications
that Moscow has sought to undermine Republican politicians as well, Watts said Thursday. During the
presidential primary races, Russian media outlets "sought to sideline opponents on both sides of
the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin," Watts said.
Turning his gaze toward Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a committee member and a GOP presidential candidate
last year, Watts said, "Senator Rubio, in my opinion you, anecdotally, suffered from these efforts."
This past week, Watts continued, social media accounts pushed material discrediting Speaker of
the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis).
AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said she wasn't familiar with the activity mentioned by Watts
but added that it was unsurprising "that foreign adversaries are trying to undermine our efforts."
Rubio, who did not immediately respond to Watts' claim, later confirmed that former members of
his presidential campaign team were targeted by IP addresses that traced back to an unknown location
within Russia. According to Rubio, the attempted breaches occurred in July 2016, shortly after he
announced he would run for Senate re-election, and again this week, at 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday. Both
attempts were unsuccessful, he said.
It's likely Moscow will turn against Trump as it becomes politically and strategically prudent
to do so, Watts warned. "They win because they play both sides," he said.
Russia began developing its active measures campaign in 2009, with its capabilities progressing
all the way up until the 2016 election, Watts said. The U.S. was slow to catch on to the threat,
he charged, because the intelligence community has been "over-focused on terrorism" and biased against
open-source information.
"My two colleagues and I use three laptops and we do this at our house," Watts said. "But for
some reason, the entire intel apparatus, with billions of dollars, will miss a tweet or a Facebook
post that's right in front of them."
Titled "Disinformation: A Primer in
Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns," the Senate Intelligence Committee's
rare public hearing on Thursday was promoted with a promise to provide details on how
the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, in his opening remarks, asserted
that the hearing would provide a "foundational understanding of the problem."
Once
again, however, evidence primarily consisted of speculation, and appeared to fall
short.
"Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik successfully
produced and peddled disinformation to American audiences" in favor of the campaign
of Donald Trump, Vice Chairman Mark Warner asserted in his remarks, as if it was a
well documented and proven fact.
"This Russian 'propaganda on steroids' was designed to poison the national
conversation in America."
"It is the totality of Russian efforts in plain sight - to mislead, to misinform,
to exaggerate - that is more convincing than any cyber evidence. RT, internet trolls,
fake news and so on, are an integral part of Russian foreign policy today," Rumer
claimed.
Roy Godson, a former Georgetown University professor still apparently stuck in the
Cold War era, continuously referred to Russia as "the Soviets." He did admit that
there is little evidence that Russia attempted to change vote tallies.
Former FBI agent Clinton Watts offered testimony about how "trolls" will push
hashtags and stories on Twitter until they make it into the top 10 trending items -
forcing mainstream media to cover the topic. Stating the obvious, he explained that
once information gets on to Twitter's trending list it will gain organic traction.
"This past week we observed social media campaigns targeting
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan hoping to foment further unrest amongst US democratic
institutions," Watts testified.
Many US Trump supporters took to Twitter following his comments to declare that
the former agent was giving Russia credit for their efforts, as prominent supporters
of the president have long voiced displeasure with Ryan.
Watts urged mainstream traditional media to boycott WikiLeaks, so that "Russian
influence dies on the vine."
He also claimed that the efforts did not just target Clinton during the primaries,
but other politicians as well - specifically including Senator Marco Rubio, who was
sitting on the panel.
"They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary
season - and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian
interests long before the field narrowed," Watts claimed. "Senator Rubio, in my
opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these efforts."
Pixabay
The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues
During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members
of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia,
first in July, and again on Wednesday.
"Former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal
information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown
location within Russia," Rubio said Thursday. "That effort was unsuccessful."
"I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 a.m.
yesterday, a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my
presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information - again
targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was
also unsuccessful."
Following the hearing, Rubio was asked by Sputnik News whether he was able
to verify the person was actually in Russia and not just using a VPN to show a
Russian address. He paused for an extended moment before answering.
"I'm going to stay with what I said in the committee and not
outline anything further," Rubio told Sputnik News, measuring his words carefully.
"We've turned it over to the appropriate authorities and we'll go from there."
Earlier this month, Dmitry Peskov,
spokesman for Vladimir Putin, told CNN that "hysteria in official Washington and
in the American media" is harming relations between the two nations. He also
vehemently denied Russian involvement in election-related hacking.
"This is unimaginable and someone has to say - all this is not true. We have to be
sober, let's come to our minds," Peskov added.
On Tuesday, Burr and Warner spoke to reporters about their investigation.
Burr, a Republican, announced that seven staffers are working full time on the
probe, compared to three on the Benghazi investigation. The smaller investigation
into the 2012 attack cost American taxpayers over $7 million.
"This one's one of the biggest investigations that the Hill has seen in my tenure
here," Burr said.
"Trump scholars
gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in
the complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position
in those days. For an explication of some of the favors owed,
which in one case went back to 1976, see the current article.
This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia
as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty
years. Again, BBw:
Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer
Gil Dezer and his father, Michael, were building a
Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla.
"Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that
Russians and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000
units in Trump buildings he built. They flooded into Trump
projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump weather the real
estate collapse, he says."
My God, what an indoctrinated, completely brainwashed twat
you are. Note to Anne: this word is listed by the British
Board of Film Classification as an example of "moderate
language" for the 12 certificate...
Incapable (in this particular area) of any independent
thinking and like parrots capable only repeat Anti-Russian
propaganda from some questionable sources.
Reminds me population of a certain country in the past.
I wonder what will happen, if Russia opens archives and
show the world the level of greed and corruption of US
politicians during 1991-2000 "economic rape of Russia." In
this case Wikileaks staff can take a very long vacation.
"... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
"... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
"... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
"... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
"... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
"... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
"... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
"... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
"... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught
by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at
the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night
called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence
Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch
hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."
"Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia,
Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia
story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.
Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian
speech....
Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican
chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without
sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds
one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether
the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.
Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United
States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.
The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines
the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.
This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC
and oversight committee who can be trusted?
As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is
very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!
I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.
CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.
Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying
their best to emulate them.
I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary
and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...
I am worried.
Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for
it.
This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have
been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on
the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.
Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?
Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.
Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set
up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.
Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking
into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now
I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.
The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up.
Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of
control.
But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.
Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come
into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If
you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.
Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on
topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings
in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).
As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.
Don Corleone : Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service
for me. But until that day - accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.
It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with
every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them
to one from Obama's group.
The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins
will surface.
Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.
Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING
ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES.....
Lets get to it
There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At
this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen
this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the
slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until
further notice, this class of folks is above the law.
The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly
50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr.
Schumer.
The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you,
including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov
to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term
elections.
The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the
result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.
MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!
Just like NSA always has and has never released any of it, why is that ? Do we actually have
a legitimate government or simply a giant criminal enterprise control mechanism ? Here are the
answers --
The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging
then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites.
Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths
and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?
Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer
to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise
a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville
are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building
construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone
gets their news from the TeeVee.
Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in
the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and
Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against
ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria,
exactly as Trump wants.
Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand
payment in rubles, too, or gold.
Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from
the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving
facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.
The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any
guesses?
"The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until
the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have
respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years
. But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned
visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date.
We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department
and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation,
because they didn't know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks."
And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.
Remember when they released the crystal clear recording of Vicky Nuland organizing the Ukraine
government? They must have been shocked at the utter indifference of supporters of the Obama regime.
John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, may
have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed
company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation's
Investigative Group.
Joule Unlimited Technologies - financed in part by a Russian firm -
originally awarded
Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based
entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.
When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President
Obama's special counsellor, the company officially
issued him 75,000
common shares of stock.
The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which - requires financial disclosures
for government officials - required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your
spouse, or dependent children of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities
when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."
The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles - or $35 million
- from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.
Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together
with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential
Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.
"I think in this case where you're talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the
collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any
foreign interest that you may have," he told TheDCNF in an interview.
The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability
Institute
report issued last year.
But Podesta didn't pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the
firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only
on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.
Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address
of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be
co-owners of Leonidio.
TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta
were not returned.
That's
not the end of the story though, as John Podesta's brother, Tony, confirmed Russia's largest
bank had hired the Podesta Group to lobby for an end to sanctions ...
Like Ron Paul says - since the government spies on everyone, it's a certainty that the last
administration spied on Trump.
By the same token, since it's guaranteed that there are pedophiles existing in positions of
power pretty much everywhere (not just in the Catholic church), one can make a blind guess that
there is a pedo ring inside the government and be right.
My suspicion is that pizzagate conspiracy is invented, but regardless of that fact, real pedophiles
in the government are scared shitless that if the authorities begin digging, they'll be discovered.
That's why they want pizzagate talk silenced.
"... Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor. ..."
The former scout-the illegal immigrant, Andrey Bezrukov, has worked
a long time in the USA, has told to the correspondent "News" Nikolay Surkov,
why the United States needs Ukraine and why Russia got together with China
to build greater Eurasia.
- The cold war ended over 20 years ago. Why the U.S.
still refers to Russia as the enemy?
- Cold war is only an episode in the relations between our
countries. There are two levels on which to consider the basis of
relationship between the two countries. The first is the level of objective
geopolitical realities, the situation of our countries and their role in the
world system. The USA declare that their wellbeing depends on the vitality
of the global system that they've built. They are a Central part of this
system. While it exists, they will be in a privileged position. Their
primary national interest - the maintenance of this global system.
In the cold war the USSR was a geopolitical competitor. He
dominated in Eurasia, creating an area in which American influence did not
pass. He created a pole for those who were dissatisfied with the American
system.
Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a
competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of
security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would
be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit
on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of
Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto
competitor.
What then should be considered at the second level?
- The second level is ideological. From our side there is no
ideological barrier in relations with the United States. If the U.S. is not
trying to impose their way of life and creating problems for our state, we
have no problems with them. They, unfortunately, have problems. They relate
to the generation that did not devoiles in the cold war. The attitude of the
ruling elite towards Russia as an enemy or competitor will not leave. They
had no revaluation, for it was not the cause. They consider themselves
winners. But because their problem isn't solved, Russia did not become a
state that does what they want, they have this element of irritation from
the unfinished task.
In addition, the independent foreign policy of Russia is a
challenge the people in the USA who preach American exceptionalism. These
are people who not just see themselves as exceptional Americans, and
consider it a blessing, ready by force to impose their position on others.
This group is very closely related to the cold war. But it is still very
closely linked with the principles of the Democratic party that America
should be ideals. For this you can to impose their understanding of things
to other countries.
I think in a few years the geopolitical component will remain, and
ideological can just move away. Will be rethinking that America no
longer has the right nor the capacity to impose their principles on
others. After some time, leave those personalities that are now the
conductors of the ideology that emerged during the cold war.
There is an ethnic component. Around the neo-conservatives
many people who are ethnically or ideologically associated with anti-Russian
diasporas of Eastern European countries, which believe that Russia dominated
them. They too will be gone anyway.
- Why work so hard to fight with Russia? Unless China
is now a much more serious competitor?
- Really, now is not Russia, but China is, from the point of
view of the Americans, the main challenge for the global system. China's
economy is so large that it attracts all of Asia and the influence of the
Americans on these countries and markets is reduced.
The US is trying to bring China out of the brackets. To fence
off a piece of Asia. Through security agreements with the surrounding
countries of China. And through the construction of a TRANS-Pacific
partnership without China.
The periods of tension in relations with the US are
predetermined and unavoidable?
- Our interest is to ensure the security around our borders to
neighbors no one told that to trade with Russia or not to trade, to war with
Russia or not to fight.
In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine objective. If they need
Ukraine as a buffer against us, we need it too, we are ethnically very
close, this is pre-Soviet geopolitical space. Its economy is part of our
economy. It is our civilizational area. Our interest there is obvious.
However, the USA is beginning to experience a redefinition of
its role in the world. They haven't reached a complete rethinking. They're
just starting to see the problems and the inadequacy of its policies.
Rethinking will happen in a few years. Then the ideological component in our
relationship is minimized. This may be due to the new President, but will
not necessarily occur in the period of his reign. American policy is
evolving cycles. Now ends the cycle that began with Reagan.
- That is, in 7-8 years we can count on change?
Then we may have a completely different relationship between
countries. But their and our interests will remain.
Objectively, Americans want to antagonize China's neighbors -
Japan, India, us. Therefore, it is important for us to build long-term
non-competitive relationship with China and India.
Our goal is to provide yourself a quiet life in the greater
Eurasia. It is hampered by the lack of security and lack of infrastructure
linking Russia's economy with the growing economies of Asia. The policy of
pairing the EEU and the silk road in building the economic infrastructure.
China and Russia have an interest in stabilizing the greater Eurasia. Then
there will be rapid economic growth.
- What happens to the American political system? Why
the Republicans are unable to put any decent presidential candidate?
In the US there is a problem by. The American people in the
face of elites, particularly business elites, was assigned to conduct the
political Affairs political superstructure - the Congress, the parties of
the ruling class, since the capital itself will not engage in politics. The
seller has the job of defending the interests of the customer. For a long
time, the ruling group did. But now the ruling group broke away from the
understanding of objective tasks. Beginning to act as she wants. In America
I understand that policy has become less effective, it does not reach the
set goals. If this continued, it will lead to the decline of US influence in
the world. The elite do not like it.
We can say that American politics is like an airplane that
flies on autopilot, which was set 30 years ago. But the pilot had already
begun to understand that it's time to get back into the cockpit and change
course. The request for change by coming from two sides. Trump is the voice
of the business elite. Sanders speaks on behalf of the young intellectual
elite. Mature change in the political superstructure. The authorities will
be renewed at the expense of people who are new understand the situation and
can propose a new course.
Help "Izvestia"
Andrei Bezrukov was born on 30 August 1960 in the city of
Kansk of Krasnoyarsk region. Graduated from Tomsk state University majoring
in history. In 2000 he graduated from the School of public management John
F. Kennedy, Harvard University with a master's degree. Colonel intelligence
retired.
Together with his wife Elena Vavilova many years spent on
illegal intelligence work. Under the name Donald Heathfield led consultancy
company specializing in government and corporate strategic forecasting and
planning. Was arrested in June 2010 in the U.S. as a result of betrayal.
He has state awards - the order "For merits before Fatherland" IV
degrees, medals. Currently - Advisor to the President of the company "Rosneft".
A member of the club "Valdai".
"... Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money". ..."
Jessejean
March 23, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Good history–wonder why Rachel The Mouth Maddow never did it in her time wasting opening segments
where she repeats herself over and over to numb our minds and spend her time when she could be saying
something insightful. Maybe that's why. PS. Why does she never invite Robert Parry on to comment?
Oh. I see.
Reply
Brian Setzler
,
March 23, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Because she's paid $7 million per year to talk about some things, and not others.
Google
"Jill Stein and Russia" and the results will illuminate the Democratic Party Echo Chamber
JWalters
,
March 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of "the establishment media going whole-hog
on these vague suspicions". That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.
Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can
easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and
Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA The massive,
long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center.
As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money".
Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new
détente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian – and
Chinese – advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.
By Gilbert Doctorow
As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven
charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat,
the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to
cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.
Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10,
2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)
Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations
ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the
Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed.
For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump
supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow,
the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable.
On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan
fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of
pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.
We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the
international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit
of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of
years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.
These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland,
the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in
the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with
subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered
imaginations of the West.
Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that
together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the
Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War
system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.
In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours
harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now
inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the
global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the
regional level of the Greater Middle East.
The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and
geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey,
Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is
heralded on daily television programming.
Mideast Interests
Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in
Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad
regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly,
Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to
support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal
was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a
significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II.
(Photo from RT)
Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony
there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the
Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest,
but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term.
Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the
European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led
post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration
to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general
population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer
Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for
trade with Russia is immense.
This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in
Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of
this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open
Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations -
operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump
administration has dropped U.S. support for him.
It would be naïve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated
demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply
giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored
"non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic
governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.
Not Your Grandfather's Cold War
But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War
days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical
rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an
ideological rivalry between – on one side – free market capitalism and parliamentary
democracy and – on the other – planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist
Party rule.
President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in
1972.
Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of détente was put in place, which
embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing
human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no
New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are
obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the
more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a
full-blown ideological conflict.
The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global
governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because
there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include:
globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus
interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of
liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of
forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally
has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations
generally favoring the second options.
On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist
terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding
25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western
political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that
he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S.
solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting
ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.
However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks – while under
fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia – we may be left with something akin to the re-set that
Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as
détente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and
Russian interests were deemed to coincide.
The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less
of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral
contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its
intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.
Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push
Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more
polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but
it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.
The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in
improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has
become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely
that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide
the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big
deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.
Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a
world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate
skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other
key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have
limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from
Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful
that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.
As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling
administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world.
If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well
have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional
players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.
Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would
still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could
begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If
and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a
triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book,
Does Russia Have a Future?
was published in August 2015.
Andrew Nichols
,
March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I
presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any
threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little
crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily
basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k
up!
Kiza
,
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe,
all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school
emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at
a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked
Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to
finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst
attacking Soviet Union.
Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers
from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the
World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the
US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the
profit.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am
KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money,
and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment
for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill,
but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American
21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr
Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in
humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.
My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder
they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's
ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and
that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed
military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying
down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't
going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole
idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to
inflict pain.
This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump
gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The
sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that
Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had
it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the
rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now
ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in
time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going
to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate
take care Joe
Kiza
,
March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am
I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the
root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project.
It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its
people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to
discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised
how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great
comment as usual.
Bob Van Noy
,
March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am
"Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and
their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian
countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is
important to understand that the Russian vision is a future
multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two
superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the
diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited
resources." Gilbert Doctorow
Again. "The real area of contention is
in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this
level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there
is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which
include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign
policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order
established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other
forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect
for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow
To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would
clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces
and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very
controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the
liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than
negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression
Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is
the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.
backwardsevolution
,
March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm
Brad Owen – that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump
needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking
(one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not
yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the
whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a
particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with
the "strategic" thinkers.
I see Trump as wanting to create free
(but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries'
business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely
neglected for the last 20 – 30 years.
I think people totally underestimate Trump.
This is really a war between those who favor
globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a
nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the
world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture,
borders, fair and open trade with other countries.
Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great
orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more
than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according
to who is paying them the most money on any given day.
I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his
competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next.
Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his
competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others
to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.
Arseniy Urazov
,
March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in
case you missed it
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/14/trumps-quiet-outreach-to-russia/
And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very
close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the
Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making
great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even
cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member
btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the
media is trying to show us
Brad Owen
,
March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am
I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being
the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the
peace and guiding development for the entire World we three.
This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile
intelligence community the moment he died; recovered
fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy.
Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World
LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail
lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties
the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's
time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European
maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska
towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST
European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the
Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of
the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and
move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and
Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these
childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive
Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are
championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision
of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program.
Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our
Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and
counter-productive.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm
It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with
demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American
leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is
liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast
food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get
displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must
pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we
are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?
All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President
Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is
worried ..
Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include
journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate
story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch
hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link
to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you
may wish to read her own words.
If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all
in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of
values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy
era of the lowest of times in America.
Kiza
,
March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm
I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms
Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises
the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates
does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows
out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US
Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same
point for a while now – the Democrats are really working to
benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they
accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself
from the mindless bunch.
Joe Tedesky
,
March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm
KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an
endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like
libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch
talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned
in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only
adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm
all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of
the NWO.
You are on too something though, when you mention to how
Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting
disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole
fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving
has brought us all to this place. It would be great if
Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for
wishful thinking.
I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your
enemies closer.
"... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
"... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
"... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
"... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
"... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
"... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
"... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
"... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
"... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
"... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
"... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
"... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate
unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he
makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.
The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff.
There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major
sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute
bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated
the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors
of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for
his own hanging.
Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am
Great post Anna.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am
Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan.
US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies
to the Afghan Taliban".
It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official
gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say
"the dog ate my homework".
Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously
all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm
Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.
In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :
"The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass
rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's
fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:
"was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering.
The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced
the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for
his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much
speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen
– he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird
of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and
both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."
In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm
That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even
heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the
early 20th century.
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm
The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties)
are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that
69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've
been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's
article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled
by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual
in my experience of watching Washington.
Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney
in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":
From that article:
"For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence
and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The
Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail
that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into
a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter
of global commerce and industry."
Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the
level of unity they will accept.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm
I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being
labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten
"donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama
got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they
are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist
traitors. They are Ziocrats.
J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy
in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that
Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.
Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire
policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the
Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.
US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to
maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over
Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special
relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that
their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic
self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and
Japan.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs
of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease
UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother
Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her
out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe
will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of
the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide
& conquer is over, finished.
Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist
Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging
mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa
during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western
Front ASAP).
They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via
The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.
Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also.
Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.
rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm
All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection
is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early,
although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was
fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there
was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign
for the UN pressure.
No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control
US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it
or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.
Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am
Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and
a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional
enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct
from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering
under the same yoke of Empire as are we).
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm
Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists.
Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are
all Jewish.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million
Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist
propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial
connection.
I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control.
US mass media.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm
To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60
percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less
than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by
Jews.
No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The
DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.
No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to
the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got
no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.
Your move.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm
In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website
that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored
amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium
News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm
Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism
and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians
from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites
in the US against African-Americans.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm
The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous
illusion that needs debunking.
There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying,
in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding.
I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama
in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and
Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that
"the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.
Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals.
PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II,
as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices
to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.
"The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a
dangerous illusion that needs debunking."
Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs
debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating
procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore
presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".
Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American
financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?
It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians
fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned
that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being
only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic
reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion
that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently –
that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?
Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed
the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request
for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry
facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested
response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve".
Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after
the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.
My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be
triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but
another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news
during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders
capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled
goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time
friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers
on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant
located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to
keep an appointment with his dermatologist.
Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.
***
Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by
Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available
at:
The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over
$100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."
In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel
lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably
making that library the most expensive ever.
Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm
Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from
US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of
such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides
that could easily obscure the feedback.
You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations
a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps
know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm
In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is
consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the
U.S. Army's director of assassination training.
Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which
was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other
words "
Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"
Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes,
whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."
In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.
Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're
all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons
back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it
goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were
– he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions
for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia,
which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire.
They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."
Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.
Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something
on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "
Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."
Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by
Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to
trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because
they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag
wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about
funny money."
A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death
threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed
and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail
of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep
to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.
backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am
JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military
staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They
would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.
Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism
students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.
Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm
A military buildup=an empire in decline.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm
before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.
what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show
and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation
and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans,
that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering
on Goebbels and his total war.
Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm
Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848
Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm
I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting
Trump
D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing
and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."
Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means
looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative
evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance
of a multi-polar world are worth considering.
Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still
considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke
screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying
to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.
Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?
For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops
in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's
going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander?
Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness
in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But
this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations
with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.
Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm
Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to
be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position.
Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something
approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.
Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered
to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other
contradictory commentary.
Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm
What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.
JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another
needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War
on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.
LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm
The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination
promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest,
Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have
continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed
has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found
us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry ..
I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional
Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake?
The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,,
the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.
chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm
i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the
nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American
holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp
by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis
for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated
with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria.
the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
"[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's
it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either
political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are
being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s)
to benefit private capital.
I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal
economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted
calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and
a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures
here.
We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being
of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons
stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present
system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something
even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."
ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm
I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member
needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I
repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm
It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least
a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with
Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion
in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.
Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm
I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.
Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed
from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately
branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably
someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat
the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I
worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their
only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into
a political football.
Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm
The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the
principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized
via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom
and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against
heretics.
Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am
Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called
intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes
me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will
disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have
become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal
tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .
Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm
They have no decency, sir.
At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.
Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm
"At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."
The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue
to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.
When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention
in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen
future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.
Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm
Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.
"... During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda." ..."
"... After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads. ..."
"... Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. ..."
"... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment
as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans,
writes Robert Parry.
Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling,
national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive
of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the
House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may
have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.
Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence
of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion,"
a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version
of Joe McCarthy.
Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported
– were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans,
whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second
campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security
adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible
that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy
coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are
not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."
As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for
several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based
on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.
Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required
multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what
had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret
Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage
negotiations in 1980.
For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted
to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories
contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations
were framed.
Going Whole-Hog
By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going
whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have
provided some help or advice to Trump.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room
at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department
Photo] Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails
and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that
process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically
and possibly remove him from office.
But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly
put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the
fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing
elected President Viktor Yanukovych.
One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language
in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions
of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is
officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).
The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the
violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian
minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine.
The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."
Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force
"regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation
with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.
In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's
not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all
that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.
Questioning War
Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major
parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military
spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations
(although they were far from pacifists).
Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions
used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations
for other wars.
Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was
modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing
regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.
The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around
Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed
nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" – from George McGovern to Jimmy
Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.
But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George
H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President
rebuffed
less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war
victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."
Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to
show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas
to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.
During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining
harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade
including
the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."
After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential
hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush
to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the
obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.
The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to
Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young
administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates
and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama
also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing
war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.
By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into
the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against
Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no
fly zones" – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with
Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."
Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing
for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged
"softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump
or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as
prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."
Being Joe McCarthy
National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between
their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association
hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from
Trump's election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.
But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound
to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative
foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama
wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.
Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's
new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't
vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were
in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those
investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why
the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.
While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the
Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:
Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly
anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file
voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly
mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that
the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is
rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?
Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather
pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community
– with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.
Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious
Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John
McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.
At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering
parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press
and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
"... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
"... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
"... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
"... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
"... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the
privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.
Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and
other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support
for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.
Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria
to "the
'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen.
Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp"
of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who
described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.
Dennis Bernstein:A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous
administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley.
She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's
pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported
in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?
... ... ...
CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA,
retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because
it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization
We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot
of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin
and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald
Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because,
at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical
for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president.
There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.
FBI Director James Comey
And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military
industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately
the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous
narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this.
If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's
nothing in it.
DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology,
these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the
United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and
the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally
normal in the context of an investigation.
CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers.
And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put
them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's
not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.
So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump,
and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And,
Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored,
at least in part.
DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?
CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta
Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac.
And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he
thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch
was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.
And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It
was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But
since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc.
And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's
the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media.
And no one knows what to believe.
Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again,
we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to
have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees,
not Obama, of course, personally.
And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be
seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading
this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And
I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media
to plant false info.
Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy
to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides,
USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about
it.
"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence,
there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....
Help out of you can. Seth Rich was exposing corruption with the DNC against Bernie
Sanders. He was mysteriously shot in the back last summer, but his wallet and
watch weren't taken.
I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms
reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think
I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than
maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.
We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?
Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.
The leftists in
the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a
revolution and dream of communal living.
Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with
roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all
the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of
the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It
doesn't work.
"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America
meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart
of US politics."
More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the
elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)
And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists.
This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like
We mean it.
"... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
"... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
"... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
"... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
"... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
"... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
"... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
"Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were
directly surveilled"
By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET
" The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin
Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President
Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on
the phone calls or other communications now being cited as
partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims
against the Obama administration, according to a
spokesperson.
"He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested
from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows
for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."
I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here
symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership
got on themselves.
He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he
can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia
came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some
sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.
In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached
from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic
witch hunt dynamics.
It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic
leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it.
But they can't call the dogs back.
It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking
Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership
(Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a
price.
As Glenn Greenwald noted.
"The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media
figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from
feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after
both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now
millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a
Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there
is no evidence.
And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as
inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and
Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the
expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now
trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal
that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis
in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led
circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael
Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context
is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA
surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the
pages of the New York Times but also became the first high
official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming,
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin
had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence
community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members
of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question
of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here,
there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said,
adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little
candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking
for it."
"Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election."
Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation
to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he
asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency
that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics
and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish.
Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.
In keeping with the theme
of providing no proof to the
general public, the
officials declined to
describe the intelligence
obtained
about the
involvement of a third-party
in passing on leaked
material to WikiLeaks,
saying they did not
want to reveal how the U.S.
government had obtained the
information
. So
just trust them, please.
Good thing we can completely
trust the integrity of
17 Intelligence Agencies
®
because this explanation is
exactly what a corrupt and
politicized institution would
use to try to pass off a
completely fabricated story as
legitimate.
Just imagine
Friday's meeting
if Trump
actually knows
who lifted the
DNC files?
Only, judging by
the way he is
playing this
thus far in
being openly
dismissive of
anything put
forward, that
may very well be
the case.
To have the
entire combined
intel machine by
the balls
without them
knowing, as they
project their
politicised
billion dollar
bullshit...now
that would be a
beautiful thing
to behold.
Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks
1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea
2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia
3. Various - claimed to be China
4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel
Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.
thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.
seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:
"We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."
check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War
By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18
(if
you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).
In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds," Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five" scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to
cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded
. "From a game theory perspective," Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president
(with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr.
) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans
without
endangering U.S. support."
Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore
Books
GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "˜John Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a
transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs.
Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."
From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana,
son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard" poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected.
Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.
At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe," related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.
The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"; "Organized Crime in Arizona"; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"; "The New Anti-Semitism"; "Would Obama Be Better?"; and "The Way Forward."
In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds" of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads" for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.
Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.
In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime," Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in" Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven" oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.
McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner." Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "˜political prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion." Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.
"To solve this systemic criminality," Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "˜fields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."
Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception" (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark" (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.
Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security," Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."
As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as
ideology in the service of criminality
-has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.
The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy" remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while
this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.
Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government
By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.
Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley
Books
The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American" domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.
Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.
Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable" donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.
Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.
America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it" that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)
Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.
Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
I call you on the statement "Assange even stated that he received the DNC material from Seth Rich!"
Wikileaks is dogmatic on the protection of sources. Wikileaks did provide a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's murderer, however.
You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.
Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!
You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.
> How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <
Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.
California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.
Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.
Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.
BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.
Where's the collusion?
Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.
Glenn Greenwald
explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures
and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly
unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did
after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions
of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day,
which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven
and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that
have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them
have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no
basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President
Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly
notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates.
In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but
also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty,
claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited
Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum
to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded
with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians
here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's
no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's
a lot of people looking for it."
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/
Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt,
sclerotic leadership.
Anachronism
said in reply to JohnH...
◾The White
House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was
"right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and
Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the
time," meaning before he left office in January.
The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing,
attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence
leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican
leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.
But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.
As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important
qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence
of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the
declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the
2016 presidential election.
Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview
on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts
between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."
"We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,'
that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence,
that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members
of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no
evidence of that included in our report."
Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion."
But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time
since I left the government."
Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest,
in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in
the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom
of all this."
"Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that
you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"
"It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent
of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is
more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations
will be revelatory, I don't know."
Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through
an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well,
I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."
So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was
no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And
he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted
to clear the air.
Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump
03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM
By Steve Benen
. . .
But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked
to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing
the nature of the evidence.
TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than
that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial
evidence now. So, again, I think -
TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?
SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there
is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation.
So, that is what we ought to do.
When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may
have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office
said Schiff meant what he said. . . .
There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.
"officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive"
"investigation is ongoing"
" began looking into possible coordination"
"a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe"
"One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests"
" it appeared"
"it's premature to draw that inference"
" it's largely circumstantial"
"cannot yet prove that collusion took place"
"CNN has not confirmed"
" according to U.S. intelligence agencies"
" investigations are notoriously lengthy"
"can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges"
"Investigators continue to analyze"
"unverified information"
"suggested coordination"
Reply
Thursday,
March 23, 2017 at 08:43 AM
Gerald
said in reply to RGC...
And what
did you expect at this point? A little investigative realism, please.
Reply
Thursday,
March 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM
Paine
said in reply to Anachronism ...
Assume
you are a business man looking for experts on Russia tht share your
Dovish views and your business posture and view point
Surely you'll scoop up Russian tools and mercenaries etc
My guess these guys operated beyond trumps awareness and control
in as Much as they were Russian state contract drones etc
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have
coordinated with Russians
By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim
Sciutto, CNN
US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with
Russians 14:11
Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates
associates of President Donald Trump communicated with
suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the
release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's
campaign, US officials told CNN.
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring
to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before
Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's
ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes
human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and
accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S.
officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI
counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may
have taken place, though officials cautioned that the
information was not conclusive and that the investigation is
ongoing.
In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began
looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign
associates and suspected Russian operatives because the
bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or
reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an
agent of a foreign power."
The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to
comment.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday
after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest
any collusion took place.
"Investigating it and having proof of it are two different
things," Spicer said.
One law enforcement official said the information in hand
suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact
and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release
information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who
spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from
the information gathered so far since it's largely
circumstantial.
The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but
the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of
the investigation, the officials said.
The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump
campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger
Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to
US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and
CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the
information the FBI is reviewing.
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in
finding conclusive intelligence is that communications
between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent
months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the
Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed
their methods of communications, making monitoring more
difficult, the officials said.
Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began
orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach
of the Democratic National Committee and associated
organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton
campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.
The Russian operation was also in part focused on the
publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at
undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators
say they are less focused on the coordination and publication
of those "fake news" stories, in part because those
publications are generally protected free speech.
The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed
an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger
case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.
FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously
lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most
highly classified programs, such as those focused on
intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for
investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing
those programs.
Investigators continue to analyze the material and
information from multiple sources for any possible
indications of coordination, according to US officials.
Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what
specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing
on.
US officials said the information was not drawn from the
leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former
British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political
opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination
between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.
There's little
doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with
the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come
to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if
impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny,
deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the
fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans
from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us
by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be
right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have
a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a
spineless GOP.
Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between
the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak
email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and
misdemeanors".
And given that, at this point, President
Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be
proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or
risk losing re-election in their home districts.
Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit
back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.
Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may
well come up empty.
Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about
how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was
a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to
working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic
message.
Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any
distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the
ball!
As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the
wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the
electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and
Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a
second term.
Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic,
corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing
leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love
playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem
Globetrotters.
The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there
is always a place for losers.
Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take]
years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from
[Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into
[Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch
hunt going."
If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and
hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.
Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep
Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep
the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of
their safety net.
10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia
Today
network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio
Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network
intended to influence foreign audiences.
Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American
conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report
that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence
of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to
describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.
Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American,"
and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.
10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter
seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.
Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as
a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would
have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The
dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple
Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level
of commitment from the Democrats.
10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to
confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.
This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence
of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the
topic have included this information.
For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact"
with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between
the Trump campaign and the Putin government.
Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing
the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of
his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and
bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.
The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation
into Trump – as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything
– but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made
a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be
furious about that.
10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting
that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and
Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes
Twitter fodder:
This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful
witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held
so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves
asking questions to which they already know the answers.
10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about
"U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data,
and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens – redacting or "masking" identities,
for instance – is almost comically non-reassuring.
Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners.
When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the
agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen
to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.
This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics.
Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence
agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly,
conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.
But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of
Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.
11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information
that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries
"not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very,
very slick witness, difficult to read.
An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are
treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both
Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches
and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.
11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping
on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the
Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross
over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters
could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.
Gowdy later scores
a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating
the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking
about Flynn.)
Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he
would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that
information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field.
Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a
newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and
prosecute that leak.
Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says
he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.
Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised,
like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the
third-rater he is.
11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey
says yes. Glad we cleared that up.
11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking
campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process,
he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the
Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.
Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech,
so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed
to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders,
or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether
Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.
Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them
to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor,
talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to
lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an
opponent down the road."
The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians
late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's
bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.
12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer
Republicans, because Reagan!
This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then
Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians
preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to
suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that?
They're clearly dissembling.
12:25 p.m. Peter King, the most mumbly member on the panel, asks about the
report that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
told Reince Priebus that one of the
New York Times
stories on Russia was "BS."
"Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr.
Priebus?" King asks.
Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:
"I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been
a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently
have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is
dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it
difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are
talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."
Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically
thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking
perfectly legitimate questions.
Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark,
it's really a giant tease.
Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more
candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public,
this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and
politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations
aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can
pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and
Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.
There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern
the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election.
That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans
won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan
attack on Trump.
A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret
surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan
concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the
intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an
excellent pressure point.
Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of
whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with
Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all
needs to be public.
But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the
frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite
some time.
The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President
Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine,
reports Gilbert Doctorow.
Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial
support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a
fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding
U.S. policy toward Russia.
For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal
interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested
victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars
somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable
pounding.
While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced
since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup
in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea
to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.
But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers
of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression."
Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance,
the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well
as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both
the U.S. mass media and professional journals.
When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the
other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and
ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.
An Encouraging Sign
That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal
of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment)
of publishing Robert English's
article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink
and does so with careful scholarship.
A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)
In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors
for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or
new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together
the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency
and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.
The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed
professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the
facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on
allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under
attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."
The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats
have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored
Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military
alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The
wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently
does."
English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why
and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin
brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.
English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify
election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing
on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when
the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."
English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by
the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong
when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection,
governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings
today.
English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of
Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate)
Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S.
policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards
Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.
Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western
democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's
own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions
for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries
to pauperization.
English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.
Who Is Robert English?
English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California
web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration
and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor
with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.
Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by
Robert Parry)
He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department
of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience
as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.
Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election
campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie
Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation,
which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy
Realist of 2016."
English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary
utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this
article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.
By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's
inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic
who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.
While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive
in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire.
The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing
their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a
politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines
that might be deployed against him or her.
Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking
for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources
who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true
beliefs.
The Politics of Geopolitics
Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another
to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream
Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let
him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for
years.
President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20
Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor
Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago
professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September
2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian
annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.
It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied
like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs
readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments.
But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of
the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.
Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found
themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers,
which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors
of power.
In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of
the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up
article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia,
a direct response to Putin's
famous Munich
speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War
and other policies.
Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their
bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald
Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.
Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many
years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did
not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.
Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill
with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality
is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.
The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the
libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's
entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working
for Vladimir Putin."
Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun
cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations
into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.
In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has
dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to
the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia
basket.
That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign
that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained
that eventually the truth will prevail.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have
a Future? was published in August 2015.
Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S.
election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be a talented
anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of cause,
Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed.
but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger,
now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written off
Trump in Summer 2016.
Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped up,
even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian
hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
Notable quotes:
"... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has
been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
"... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and
other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These
allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In
consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
"... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She
has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.
All her blows were below the belt.
This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody
using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint
can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)
The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer
2016.
Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.
Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong
The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National
Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second
claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims
related to the DNC.
..........................
The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken
the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally
shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved.
Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for
the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access
to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access
to the DNC servers.
Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian
artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported
or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of
the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.
A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers
and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded.
These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian
enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.
It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.
"Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who
advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is
a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his
criticisms of the man who defeated her" [
RealClearPolitics
].
Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political
universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics .
The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce
from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige
of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington.
And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican
members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats
interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words
"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [
Politico
].
(Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were
hacking
tampering
with
meddling in
seeking to influence
our
election!
Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
"From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine,
The Baffler
(DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private
conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals
take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at
the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more
I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about
the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst
and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter
handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked
by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had
been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka.
To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence
operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying
to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the
name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."
"Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [
The
American Conservative
]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"]
claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do
raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's
administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation
of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer,
unfortunately, is yes."
"Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics
for Putin's Benefit" [
Slate
].
I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other
stories. Here's
a blow-by-blow from NPR
.
I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up
a Trump scandal with
the wrong foreign power
:
One thing we should
have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the
corporate media and Democrats, and
assume that the exact opposite is true
.
The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most
embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen,
recently warned in an interview with
Politico
that
her biggest fear is
a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.
Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant
to the topic.
Glasser
: I want to talk a little bit about where we are right
now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting
the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by
Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people
were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the
conspiracy trap."
And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President
Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping
President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you
mean by that?
Gessen
: Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at,
you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but
what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's
going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election
and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that
causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?
So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a
lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it
serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of
imagination, which obsesses me.
So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it
allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by
this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness
of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached
by a Republican Congress.
That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the
tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way,
right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere.
And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also
serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.
Glasser
: That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And
you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real
threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not
Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That
leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.
Gessen
: Right. Which-
Glasser
: I think that's your point.
Gessen
: That is my point. And also that it's destructive to
politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics
happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at
this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of
the federal government as we have known it for generations.
All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth.
If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about
conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we
should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump
ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?
If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging
in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political
space
Gessen
: I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're
already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think
it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at
their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-
Glasser
: So you would see them as potential enemies as much
as potential friends? That this scenario-
Gessen
: Oh, absolutely.
Glasser
: -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not
just Trump and Putin uniting?
Gessen
: Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with
them.
She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump
is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats
will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on
Twitter:
All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media
jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy
Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of
Consortium News
to
highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is.
From yesterday's piece,
The
Missing Logic of Russia-gate
:
Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who
served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received
payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.
The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow
in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network,
with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated
this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump
campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.
Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government
official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often
pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. (
Former
President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment
bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times
reported
in
2015,)
Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post
reported
that
RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.
Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote,
"RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get
back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds
our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn
associate about a month before the event."
So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President
Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to
betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are
quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?
Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're
too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia.
A conflict that
once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.
A few days ago Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, introduced a piece of
legislation that would give the Department of Justice "new authority" to investigate potential violations
of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by the 'Russian Times' . Among other things, Shaheen said
the legislation was necessary to determine whether "RT News is coordinating with the Russian government
to spread misinformation and undermine our democratic process." We won't even bother to touch on
the inherent hypocrisy of such a statement, but here is the
press release from Shaheen's website :
Following intelligence reports that RT News operates as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government,
U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has introduced legislation that gives the Department of Justice
new authority to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by RT America.
"We have good reason to believe that RT News is coordinating with the Russian government to spread
misinformation and undermine our democratic process," said Shaheen. "The American public has a right
to know if this is the case. RT News has made public statements boasting that it can dodge our laws
with shell corporations, and it's time for the Department of Justice to investigate. My bill provides
the authority needed to request documentation of RT News and find out who they're accountable to."
The Director of National Intelligence's recent report titled Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections concluded that RT News officials have structured their affiliate
organizations to deliberately circumvent U.S. reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act. Senator Shaheen's Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement
Act gives the Department of Justice new authority to compel organizations like RT America to produce
documentation on funding sources and foreign connections.
Well, as it turns out, Russian officials have the power to launch meaningless witch hunts in their
country as well and have decided to demonstrate that power with the announcement today that they'll
launch a similar investigation into all U.S. media currently operating in Russia. Per
Reuters :
Saudi Arabia is the target of many 10's of billions in future
arms sales. US needs to keep them burning jet fuel and
jettisoning bombs so they buy planes, and other big ticket
stuff from US.
Trump must be listening to the pentagon guys
saying we could have won in Vietnam if we had more time and
bombs...........
The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this
precisely because the facts don't matter once the
narrative is set. Half the country will go on
thinking there's no way the story would have made it
this far were there not some there there.
I have wondered if some of the strategy is
to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so
that if he does go after some of the elite who
need to go down for their crimes, that it will
be framed as a dictator abusing his power,
engaged in partisan politics.
I wonder
if he can go after them at all without looking
like Mussolini?
Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will
say that but they hate Trump no matter
what.
Trump's deplorable supporters know
the score and will criticize if he doesn't
go after them hard and now is a perfect
opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who
demanded this investigation but want the
scope restricted to Russia, and Russia
only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this
up either because they suck too.
The first rule of Swamp Club is you
DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that
but they hate Trump no matter what."
This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put
off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything
to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest
leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a
nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or
is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.
Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like
Trump is a crypto jew:
Baseless accusations to try and draw attention away from what the Dems
actually DID, with evidence and all.
Libtards wreck everything they
touch, even the hard work of theorists who until recently achieved an
amazing level of success in converting conspiracys into fact.
<- They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions ->
Isn't
delusions
a better word choice?
There's a part of me that wants the tide to change quickly, for the intel
and deep state apparatus pendulum to swing back the other way.
This slow motion train wreck is wreaking havoc on my libertarian
leanings. I keep hoping against hope for a dramatic event like indictments
and perp walks.
The best outcome would be the elimination of the many 3 letter agencies
that have become pygmalian.
Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they
have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber,
while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the
unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is
could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up
what they are told on the tee vee .
Yes, this paints a bleak picture,
but there you have it.
Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying,
spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks,
hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human
beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're
spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs.
I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is
becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as
will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the
blowback, I would imagine ..
Obviously I could be
completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such
as they are, forever ..
That IS what they say about Trump voters you know
....
Watched more media this am,
Trump kicked their ass into a puddle with
this Obama wiretapping charge. Totally bitch slapped them. Now he's made
Merkel & the EU & G20 look stupid along with the media.
if it comes to it, former President Obama should be in jail... probably
has too mucn plausible deniability to shield him, but where there's smoke
there's fire
if I were Trump D.C. would be undergoing a serious witch hunt as we
speak... the people who did this need to do time and the lying lapdog
'media' needs to be sanctioned
We start a war with Russia, we'll all be on the "front line". The
retarded snowflakes don't even know that they are supporting this effort
to start a war with Russia.
...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run
from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or
might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...
"... From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented. ..."
"... The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected ..."
"... now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
Is sanity finally returning? After weeks of ranting and raving about Russian "interference" and
Putin-Trump conspiracies, so-called 'intelligence' agencies and high-ranking Democrats are quietly
walking back their rhetoric and managing their base's expectations - simply put: there's no 'there',
there .
If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build
up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump
will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.
From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the
Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other
issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless
it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate
the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
The principal problem for Democrats is that so
many media figures and
online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free
conspiracies - just as
right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there
are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which,
at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard
as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw
Mike Pence as "the Deep
State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence
Officials plan...
Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence
defeatable.
As
The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform
drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...
By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence
pays
As we concluded previously,
if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration
in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.
No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains
that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are
they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia
– a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.
Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian
agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more
ground troops to Syria alongside
Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian
regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this
time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more
than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
"color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"
Not so fast...
Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...
Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN
THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.
Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job...
Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in
the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.
I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that
this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...
If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn
warned against.
"Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more
than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail
President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck
Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A
scattered few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many
as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........
I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA
my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA
They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump
probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that
the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not
even in the same branch or division.
They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who
pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA
A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors,
like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their
own elected administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
"... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
"... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
"... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
"... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
"... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
"... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
"... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
"... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
"... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
"... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
"... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
"... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
"... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
"... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
"... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
"... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
"... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
"... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
"... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
"... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
"... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
"... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing
narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.
One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement
agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign.
This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even
suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate"
allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain
the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in,
and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.
It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal
and constitutional election.
The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians
did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and
elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity
undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary
record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration
with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained.
Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.
This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:
The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI
developed an interest
in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant
suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow
and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent
and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted
upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have
"any nefarious
purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.
The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also
reporting that,
"For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents
scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved
in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations,"
which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.
In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI
sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect
information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also
permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part
of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.
Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned
initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee
began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked
on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele
in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained
serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of
some bizarre sexual escapades.
At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and
his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader
Harry Reid wrote to Comey and
demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September,
Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused
the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."
In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted
its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly
related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal
investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the
election and this is possibly what Trump was
referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.
Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already
know that and he presumably approves of it.
Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that
there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower
"to my knowledge"
because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously
lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none
of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey
provided a view contrary to that of Clapper,
saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court."
FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very
specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."
The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence
agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It
culminated in
ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
British and Dutch intelligence were
apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded
by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters
stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse
Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.
President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for
Hillary. President Obama
called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.
After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US
Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the
35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being
long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele
dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made
public.
Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration,
Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with
the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative
information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information
relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep
it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.
Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported
that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian
ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."
Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security
advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence
officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn
was eventually forced
to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA,
FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department
is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.
One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited
"four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence
officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.
The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused
of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak
and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any
investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.
Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its
revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia
and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed
the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S.
intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been
in contact with Trump representatives.
The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full
assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction
were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide
readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them
or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly
sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin,
a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.
The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts
to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably
some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.
The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of
the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident
have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want
Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter,
frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed
by former
consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged
in developing
a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection
and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.
If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning
Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower
server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on
national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal
intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected
on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were
changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be
disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not
be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.
The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have
been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the
new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies
while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options
when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course,
unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.
It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with
almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated
to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian
source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the
outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable
evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have
been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-à-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they
have been accused of lying.
So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe
to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple
the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.
And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous
dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might
just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies
have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a
particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has
placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
"... In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton. ..."
"... Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign. ..."
In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts
come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton.
By Robert Parry
On Feb, 27, Consortiumnews.com published an article * describing misrepresentations by Canada's
new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about her Ukrainian maternal grandfather whom she has portrayed
as a hero who struggled "to return freedom and democracy to Ukraine" but left out that he was a Nazi
propagandist whose newspaper justified the slaughter of Jews.
Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist
Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was
asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell
the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.
Freeland told reporters, "I don't think it's a secret. American officials have publicly said,
and even [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said, that there were efforts on the Russian
side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn't come as a surprise if these same
efforts were used against Canada. I think that Canadians and indeed other Western countries should
be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at them."
Though Freeland did not comment directly on the truthfulness of our article, her office denied
that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.
Other leaders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government joined in the counterattack. Citing
the danger of Russian disinformation, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said, "The situation
is obviously one where we need to be alert."
In an article on March 6, Canada's Globe and Mail also rallied to Freeland's defense claiming
that she was "being targeted by allegations in pro-Moscow websites that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather
was a Nazi collaborator."
The newspaper also reached out to other experts to add their denunciations of Consortiumnews.com
and other news sites that either reposted our story or ran a similar one.
"It is the continued Russian modus operandi that they have. Fake news, disinformation and targeting
different individuals," said Paul Grod, president of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress. "It is just
so outlandish when you hear some of these allegations – whether they are directed at minister Freeland
or others."
The Globe and Mail also quoted Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Andriy Shevchenko, citing our supposedly
fake news as "another reason we should realize that Russia is waging a war against the free world.
It is not just about Ukraine."
The ambassador then offered some advice about standing up to the Russians and their disinformationists:
"I am absolutely sure they will seek new targets in the free world so I would encourage our Canadian
friends to be prepared for that, to stay strong and we will be happy to share our experience in how
to deal with all these information wars."
A Second-Day Story
The only problem with all these righteous condemnations was that the information about Freeland's
grandfather was true – and Freeland knew that it was true.
In a second-day story, The Globe and Mail had to revisit the issue, reporting that "Freeland knew
for more than two decades that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi
newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War."
In other words, not only was our story accurate but Freeland knowingly launched a deceptive attack
on us and other news outlets to punish us for writing the truth.
And not only was our story correct but it was newsworthy, given Freeland's fierce support for
Ukrainian nationalism and her deep hatred of Russia. Canadians have a right to know what drives those
passions in their Foreign Minister. In this case, her worldview derived from her grandparents who
sided with Adolf Hitler and who fled to the West as the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazis.
Yet, instead of fessing up and acknowledging these facts, Freeland chose to dissemble and slander
journalists who were doing their job. And the smears didn't entirely stop.
Even as the Globe and Mail admitted the reality about Freeland's grandfather, it continued to
disparage the journalists who had exposed the facts. The second line of the newspaper's second-day
article read: "Ms. Freeland's family history has become a target for Russian forces seeking to discredit
one of Canada's highly placed defenders of Ukraine." ...
Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper
Stories published in pro-Russian websites have said Ms.
Freeland's strong stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine
is linked to her grandfather's past.
East Ukraine [Russians therein] have as much right to
independence as Turks left behind in Kosovo.
When the Red
Army sets up a permanent [Camp Bonesteel] armed presence to
assure the minority are safe it might look a tiny fraction
like of the crimes of the US/NATO.
Early in the "occupation" of Ukraine Hitler turned down
the non Aryan volunteers, by D Day they were killing
Americans in Normandy.
In the case of Russian news I err on the side they are
correct compared to the NYT which tells every who could be
conned they "tell the neoliberal truth".
Imagine such a Democratic opinion maker having absorbed and
been overtaken by Cold War thinking, unable to be
self-reflective enough to understand the disdain of a people
that is being fostered, how damaging this can be, evidently
wishing a return to the fearful 1950s.
That such a
Democratic opinion maker has come to use the language of the
1950s to instill disdain for a people and spread fear in
those who would question or dissent from the prejudice
continues to be shocking and dismaying.
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not. ..."
"... What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone. ..."
"... This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic. ..."
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates.
A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by
political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something
that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the
Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would
be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed,
Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden.
Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This
is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena
power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus,
one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Judging from comments totally brainwashed part of American electorate conditioned to believe into
"Boris and Natasha" stories and unconditionally support DemoRats (not understanding that they are
just soft neoliberals and also want to redistribute wealth up, away from ordinary shmucks) is very comfortable
being out sync with reality. Middle age starting to replay in the USA. Right here, right now. see
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/
Also from the same thread: "RUSSIA!!!!!. Look guys, RUSSIA! The
Obama administration repeatedly broke federal laws, lied about breaking
those laws, got caught lying about breaking those laws (thank you
"whistle blowers") then said it stopped breaking said laws. Then
it got caught lying about saying it stopped breaking laws. "
"... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
"... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
"... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
"... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
"... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
"Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi,
Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover,
the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid.
Even Donald Trump thinks so ."
At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John
Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and
CNN sexed up the transcript.
Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked
by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He
won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it
than when other people have led it.'"
From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in
response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying
to do it here.
Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:
[T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right.
Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald
Trump.
The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state
is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin
palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban
smart set .
We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by
using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that
is happening.
One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot"
story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or
the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.
Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate"
reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.
There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible
the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.
Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats
like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly
refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.
Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks
don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive.
They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.
In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation,
or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and
after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just
told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.
Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that
normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance
in the media. What does this mean?
How fast the loser become take
the role of the enemies.
Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup
in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen,
Syria and Afghanistan.......
There is nothing more than a politicized 'thought experiment' on how the Russians could in
their alter reality have kept the career criminal from taking Pa and Wi.
Their press even rolls out dead journalists against Putin while the 65 dead around the Clinton
crime family is 'tin foil hat....'
"... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
"... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
"... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
"... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to
try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there
is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed
the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as
a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history.
He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the
uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave
the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No
evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene,
and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of
Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that
Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies,
might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood
in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage
of the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion
in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the
wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating
defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military
field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any
ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually
is."
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking
account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in
the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to
the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined
to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog
procurements means much for any country.
The illusion of DNC hack, allegation it is "the Russians
are coming:".
There is not there there!
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM
Game Warden said in reply to ilsm...
The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and
viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the
fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one
hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.
The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it
paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found
that it rotted from the head anyway.
The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or
whatever, they land.
The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM
ilsm said in reply to Game Warden...
Oh well Clinton was never good with files.
My resident
Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the
Russians are coming' two weeks ago.
They should keep the operational schedule for the coup
closer.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM
libezkova said in reply to ilsm...
Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece.
I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian
propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.
But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and
anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting
admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)
== quote ==
Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy,
frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line
from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color
revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which
deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of
the uprisings of the Arab Spring.
Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya
Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the
country and gave the signal," Putin said.
"They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State
Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for
the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and
civil-society groups like the National Endowment for
Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the
election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised
instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated
Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift
toward an America First populism that would leave Russia
alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of
congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm.
Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading
foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing
pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and
the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more
"ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has
the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and
accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the
shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian
television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of
the new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that
the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.
== and of quote ==
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion
and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as
governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by
replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the
infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare
to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially
of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the
costs by surveying the major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent,
or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in
current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year
2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65
billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense
and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year,
2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested
for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and
estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those
are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches
$4.79 trillion....
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM
anne said in reply to anne...
Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is
asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001
and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost
of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on
Homeland Security.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM
Peter K. said in reply to anne...
"Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of
always but always understating defense spending by playing
all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on
military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to
talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary
person is made to think spending is tens of billions of
dollars less than it actually is."
Yes. I wouldn't trust
any info PGL provides without clear links from objective
sources.
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM
Pinkybum said in reply to anne...
Surely you would want to express this number at least as
inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of
captures.)
Reply
Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
I like the OMB historical tables that reflects
outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to
obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures
for delivery for years.
Tracking GDP metric is limited in
perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the
accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books
nor what new stuff is added to the order books.
If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense
account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a
good source for GDP activity.
There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend
from FY 2009 through today.
Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting
some account information on backlog procurements means much
for any country.
"... Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought." ..."
"... *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties. ..."
Vladimir
Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a
straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,
and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the
Arab Spring. Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests
in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the
signal," Putin said. "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active
work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society
groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and
the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.
... .. ...
Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and
the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael
Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor
Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing
pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have
to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."
In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions
against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in
Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the
new President.
... ... ...
*An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded
Russian political parties.
This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin
and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign
"Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"
By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT
"In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally
advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National
Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877
CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy
representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed
"Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump
International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during
that meeting, Acosta said.
Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he
sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling
for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon
said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those
sort of details, as they've made clear."
Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political
party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday
in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump
adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.
Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials
during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican
Party platform."...
This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".
This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.
There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance
which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks
like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism,
the better.
Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey
Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this
dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected.
He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to
hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.
In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "
This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political
sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation
providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.
But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize
their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking
ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.
BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful)
in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia
-- two major continental powers.
Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces
that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.
The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially
a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into
the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous
anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))
So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you
understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary
did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).
What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will
come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to
cover it up.
You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand
complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog
(overtaking Fred)
Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging
from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some
people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and
political events; cm is one example).
Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage
of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your
urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.
As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this
dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of
Tonkin incident is another)
"... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold
Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.
At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well
with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory
with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as
receptive an audience.
Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but
I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry
and there is a different public sentiment.
I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could
be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our
current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.
Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could
get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude
such as partnering with China on solar energy.
This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at
Yale University on February 25, 1997
San Patch
Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our
favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his
intellect and his humanity.
emir yi
He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to
be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos
I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his
claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he
explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently
violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs,
state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the
IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by
being a moral titan
Weakened Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump
By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS
FEB. 23, 2017
Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two
cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task
of rebuilding the party's depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that
the blueprint has already been chosen for them - by an incensed army of liberals demanding no
less than total war against President Trump.
attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there
is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC
* a few of tonight's pity party decorations.........
"Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia
stories"
By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM
"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress
in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged
issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White
House.
Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last
week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's
campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.
The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration
to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories
on the alleged contacts with Russia.
The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose
that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in
White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...
"... The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article. ..."
The trend is to Deep State co-opt democracy, and use it overthrow legit goverment and
replace it will neoliberal stooges what pray on the altor of democracy-killing Globalism that
makes of all governments just enforces for wishes of multinationals. Corporatism does not involves
any real democracy, not at all.
Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed
here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of
neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond
neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).
What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again,
primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but
its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of
our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say
nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).
America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its
self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as
its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant
culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.
Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States'
persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often
manufactured enemies.
Somehow the current situation in
the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil
plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana,
that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop
believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen
surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the
last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes
The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other
respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its
flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have
included this in your article.
Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and
strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with
Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China,
India, Japan, is an overstretch
President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the
military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today
.
The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America's 'deep state'
reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of
Washington.
The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was
ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia's ambassador and what he may or may not have
told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our
national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain
Democrats.
Flynn's crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election.
Big, big deal. That's what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back
channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence
agencies.
There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of 'good guys'
and 'bad guys' comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced
that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.
The only nations that could threaten America's very existence are nuclear
powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that
order.
Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war
with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough.
Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare
– near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan's anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow's
panicked response.
Margolis' #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good
terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost
all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear
terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.
Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly
terrible choice. I'm glad he is gone. But Flynn's sin was being loopy, not talking on
the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be
talking every day to Moscow, even 'hi Boris, what's new with you guys? 'Nothing much new
here either besides the terrible traffic.'
The current hue and cry in the US over
Flynn's supposed infraction is
entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration.
Trump
caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the
$80 billion per annum intelligence budget – which alone, boys and girls, is larger than
Russia's entire defense budget! He's talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon's
almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America's
imperial wars abroad.
What's to like about Trump if you're a member of the war party and
military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex?
The complex wants
its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of
anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many
Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.
As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides
knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and
skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to
share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.
It's sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington
over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation.
The US has been buying and
manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela
Merkel's cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and
manipulation of France's 2012 election.
We live in a giant glass house.
The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire.
We have
to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political
bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.
Right now, I'm more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than
I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.
"... Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt. ..."
"... As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. ..."
Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in
their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New
McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians,
risking a new witch hunt.
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign;
the Deep State Rises to the Surface
by Diana Johnstone
As if the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign hadn't
been horrendous enough, here comes another one: in France.
The system in France is very different, with multiple
candidates in two rounds, most of them highly articulate, who
often even discuss real issues. Free television time reduces
the influence of big money. The first round on April 23 will
select the two finalists for the May 7 runoff, allowing for
much greater choice than in the United States.
But monkey see, monkey do, and the mainstream political
class wants to mimic the ways of the Empire, even echoing the
theme that dominated the 2016 show across the Atlantic: the
evil Russians are messing with our wonderful democracy.
The aping of the U.S. system began with "primaries" held
by the two main governing parties which obviously aspire to
establish themselves as the equivalent of American Democrats
and Republicans in a two-party system. The right-wing party
of former president Nicolas Sarkozy has already renamed
itself Les Républicains and the so-called Socialist Party
leaders are just waiting for the proper occasion to call
themselves Les Démocrates. But as things are going, neither
one of them may come out ahead this time.
As Democrats compete to become the new War Party –
pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed
Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did
in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
From Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota)
Dear Senator Klobuchar, I write with concern over
statements you have made recently regarding Russia.
These statements have been made both at home and abroad,
and they involve two issues; the alleged Russian hack of the
presidential election and Russia's actions in the aftermath
of the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev.
U.S. intelligence services allege that President Vladimir
Putin ordered an influence campaign to denigrate Hillary
Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The campaign is
purported to include the production of fake news,
cyber-trolling, and propaganda from Russian state-owned
media. It is also alleged that Russia hacked the email
accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton
campaign chair John Podesta, subsequently providing the
emails to WikiLeaks.
Despite calls from many quarters, the intelligence
services have not provided the public with any proof.
Instead, Americans are expected to blindly trust these
services with a long history of failure. Additionally, the
former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and
the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John
Brennan, have both been known to lie to the public and to
Congress, Mr. Clapper doing so under oath.
Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange maintains the
emails did not come from Russia (or any other state actor)
and his organization has an unblemished record of revealing
accurate information in the public interest that would
otherwise remain hidden. While responsible journalists
continue to use the word 'alleged' to describe the
accusations, Republicans with an ax to grind against Russia,
and Democrats wishing to distract from their own failings in
the campaign, refer to them as fact. Indeed, on the Amy in
the News page of your own website, Jordain Carney of The Hill
refers to the Russian meddling as "alleged".
A congressional commission to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking is not necessary. Even if all the allegations
are true, they are altogether common occurrences, and they
certainly don't rise to the level of "an act of aggression",
"an existential threat to our way of life", or "an attack on
the American people" as various Democratic officials have
characterized them. Republican Senator John McCain went full
monty and called the alleged meddling "an act of war".
Joining War Hawks
It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and
the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of
Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia,
and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28,
2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the
unproven claim of "Russian interference in our recent
election". It also claimed that the countries you were
visiting were facing "Russian aggression" and that "Russia
illegally annexed Crimea".
It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by
sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the
facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no
regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway
provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its
territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the
Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are
most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.
However regrettable, it must be remembered that the unrest
was precipitated by the February 22, 2014 overthrow of the
democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych which,
speaking of meddling, was assisted by U.S. State Department,
other American government agencies, and one Senator John
McCain. The subsequent military and paramilitary operations
launched by the coup government against the People's
Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were described by President
Putin as "uncontrolled crime" spreading into the south and
east of the country. In American parlance, both the interim
coup government in Kiev and the current government of
President Petro Poroshenko have engaged in "killing their own
people".
It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage
covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
Lookups for
ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of
the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his
campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated
with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.
"Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone
call to Russia in years."
- cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017
Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of
both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions
had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.
The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance
of subterfuge
.
"... Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question. ..."
"... After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian. ..."
"... US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending. ..."
"... Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs. ..."
"After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and
the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that
money is in property, bank -- Swiss bank accounts -- shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his
cronies," he added.
Not that Putin couldn't be worth $200 billion. I bet he is. But how did he get this wealth?
Oh yea - those Russian oil companies. That is where Russia's main source of wealth lies.
Give
Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to
be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question
who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question.
I do not have a single shred of respect for Putin. I do not have a single shred of respect for
the Chinese leaders. But somehow we have to have diplomatic relationships with both.
And we are tied at the hip with the Chinese economy. And somewhat with the Russians. And we
agree some language does not belong here.
After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former
Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent.
No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian.
US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin!
There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except
with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending.
Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives
peddling F-35 job programs.
"... Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces. ..."
"... As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ..."
"... Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way. ..."
At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on this matter, I can see both sides
of the issue:
You are correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.
You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware
that he is selling out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that issue.
In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community leakers are trying to subvert the democratic
will of the people in elected Trump president.
You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters did not believe
it when they voted for him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my opinion, are
patriotic heroes.
Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the sources of its intelligence out
in the open on the table does not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that they are
correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is your friend.) The deeper problem is that I
suspect Trump's voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community is correct.
I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to neoliberal profiteering war mongers
who care only for perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war over a few hundred
thousand Estonians who hate Russia since the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.
Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only bring China I against both US
and Russia in about 50 years.
*Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia sold by the yellow press.
I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of Trump selling out to Russia and didn't
care; if there had been conclusive proof of that before the election, other people might have
come out to vote against him.
Besides, some of his voters might not care and some might.
In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors does not have to do with subverting
"the will of the people". At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment, which is
another way to express the will of the people. (Or actually, the will of the plutocrats and their
Republican and Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).
New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts here used to sing quite a different
song as for Hillary bathroom email server ;-).
Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is now used to swipe under the carpet
the crisis of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still dominated
by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc),
are always want to fight another war, but using some other ("less valuable") peoples bodies as
the target of enemy fire.
Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty trick called "Catch the thief", when
they are the thief.
Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the redistribution of wealth up during the last
two decades destabilized the country both economically and politically?
Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out exists, or this is just something
like a pre-collapse stage as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles sword
of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important
factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular stagnation", and then what? Can the current
globalized economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe downsizing.
The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder of xUSSR economic space (which helped
to save and return to growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion new customers
and huge space for "dollarization") is no longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can
disintegrate.
And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open them to neoliberal globalization (aka
"controlled chaos") like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly and have unforeseen
side effects.
The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that understood at least on intuitive level
that huge problems with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the can down the road,
and that Hillary might well means the subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.
Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least courageous enough to ask uncomfortable
questions.
Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable
questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from
the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change
we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.
And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail Trump and try to stage "purple"
color revolution, this might well be a sign of desperation, not strength.
They have no solution for the country problem, they just want to kick the can down the road
and enjoy their privileges while the country burns.
As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather
than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
If you are peddling developed land then you want low interest rates for your customers so that
you can get the highest price for your developments. Still there might theoretically be a narrow
channel that your deal might slip through if commercial real estate were for some reason assigned
a lower risk premium than residential, but ordinarily the opposite is true.
A higher percentage of new businesses fail than new households and if more new households fail
then even more new businesses will fail right along with them.
The one possibility for Trump to have it this way would be that he crashes the US economy and
all new commercial development would be for Russian tourist to visit America while either deflation
and depression or Weimar scale inflation was suppressing prices for US goods in real ruble terms.
I expect that if you look at the pre-bellum South, there will be plenty of examples of stagnant
wages, low interest rates...
In Mexico, wages never rose regardless of monetary policy.
The point that I've been making for a while: despite a few progressive economists delusions
for rapid economic growth to tighten wages, it won't happen for the following reasons.
1) most employers will just say 'no,' probably encouraged centrally by the US Chamber of Commerce
and other industry associations. Collusion? You bet.
2) employers will just move jobs abroad, where there's plenty of slack. Flexible labor markets
has been one of the big goals of globalization, promoted by the usual suspects including 'librul'
economists like Krugman.
3) immigration, which will be temporarily constrained as Trump deports people, but will ultimately
be resumed as employers demand cheap, malleable labor.
I disagree. It happened in late 90s. The ideas you mention are factors, including the decline
of unions.
What has happened in recent decades is that asset bubbles - like the dot.com and housing bubbles
- have popped sending a high pressure economy into a low pressure one with higher unemployment.
Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't
think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way.
Fed funds rates were consistently about double the rate of inflation.
The fact that the economy boomed and wages increased was due to the tech boom--an unrepeatable
anomaly. The Fed and Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to stifle it with high rates
and budget balancing.
To make sure that wages never rose again, Clinton signed China PNTR, granting China access
to WTO, ushering in the great sucking sound of jobs going to China. Krugman cheered.
If the neoliberal elite can't part with at least a small part of their privileges, the political
destabilization will continue and they might lose everything.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
"... "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency ..."
"... For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. ..."
"... Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. ..."
"... Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. ..."
"... It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '. ..."
"... The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. ..."
"... Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. ..."
"... I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? ..."
"... Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. ..."
Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise
man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not.
However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone
of Trump's national security policy . For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare
that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the
CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council.
Put differently, Flynn
tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them
back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover,
the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood
that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests.
That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.
The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had
a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.
And Trump accepted this resignation.
Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run
Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European
politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are
fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.
But now Trump has betrayed us all.
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he
hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ? Today, Trump has shown
us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook
up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an
act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump
will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types,
ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.
Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him.
The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took
the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who
would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all
move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and
emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby.
Hassan Nasrallah was right when he
called him 'an
idiot '.
The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will
smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some
might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.
The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns
out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU.
Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous 'deplorables' who try as best we can
to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?
I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just
hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington
'swamp' will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of
solace in two undeniable facts:
Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist
Empire. Just like Erdogan' purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump 'color
revolution' has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of
the USA.
The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against
Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show they
true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization
of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and
that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people.
In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the
USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no
ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for
the US to avoid a collapse.
Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also
acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the
actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over.
Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.
Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not "great again", but at least stronger,
a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from
the others. That's over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump
stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at
any level.
I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others
surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking
Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been
comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to
show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new
Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?
Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance
that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would
focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual
edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian
statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.
Today's Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the
official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that
barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it's over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people
in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power
by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.
I see very dark clouds on the horizon.
* * *
UPDATE1 : Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but
what Trump's caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump's character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself
– after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump?
UPDATE2 : Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down:
"... Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State" ..."
"... Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest. ..."
"... I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations. ..."
"America's Biggest Creditors Dump Treasuries in Warning to Trump"
by Brian Chappatta...February 12, 2017...5:00 PM EST
> Japanese investors cull U.S. government debt by most since '13
> Currency-hedged returns were worst on record last quarter
"In the age of Trump, America's biggest foreign creditors are suddenly having second thoughts
about financing the U.S. government.
In Japan, the largest holder of Treasuries, investors culled their stakes in December by
the most in almost four years, the Ministry of Finance's most recent figures show. What's striking
is the selling has persisted at a time when going abroad has rarely been so attractive. And
it's not just the Japanese. Across the world, foreigners are pulling back from U.S. debt like
never before.
From Tokyo to Beijing and London, the consensus is clear: few overseas investors want to
step into the $13.9 trillion U.S. Treasury market right now. Whether it's the prospect of bigger
deficits and more inflation under President Donald Trump or higher interest rates from the
Federal Reserve, the world's safest debt market seems less of a sure thing -- particularly
after the upswing in yields since November. And then there is Trump's penchant for saber rattling,
which has made staying home that much easier.
"It may be more difficult than usual for Japanese to invest in Treasuries and the dollar
this year because of political uncertainty," said Kenta Inoue, chief strategist for overseas
bond investments at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities in Tokyo. "Treasury yields may
rise rapidly again in the near future, which will continue to discourage them from buying aggressively."
Nobody is saying that foreigners will abandon Treasuries altogether. After all, they still
hold $5.94 trillion, or roughly 43 percent of the U.S. government debt market. (Though that's
down from 56 percent in 2008.) A significant drawdown can harm major holders like Japan and
China as much as it does the U.S.
And, of course, homegrown demand has of late been able to absorb the pickup in overseas
selling..."
Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State"
Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along
the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest.
I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three
previous neoliberal administrations.
But can you please ask yourself two very simple questions:
Who and how accumulated that much debt?
Who did run the wars of neoliberal empire expansion to the tune of five trillion dollars?
Was it Trump?
I would greatly appreciated if you can answer them in the reply to this post. Or, even better,
make some pause in posting neoliberal propaganda.
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
"... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
"... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon. ..."
"... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
"... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
"... Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
"... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
"... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
"... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
"... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
"... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still
don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis
by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative
polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets
an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly
help his cause by doing so.
Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's
going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official
building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page
of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more
serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its
inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.
And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious
issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply
ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for
fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart
or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied.
A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.
British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized
his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords:
"An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is
an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and
the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like
the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.
The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is,
is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not
a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press
pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British
role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle
East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'?
Not me.
The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s),
and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks
as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport,
from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak
up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable
experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak
in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that
of strangers.
Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a
chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away
sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good
book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along
with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which
any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly
pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness,
they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the
same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.
Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least
decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is.
But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching
the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still,
there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.
The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering
a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and
Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith
in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be
cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.
Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it
makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's
probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference
between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field
MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other
way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.
That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the
execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For
anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged
racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn
their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.
We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically,
morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people
while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media
feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.
The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps
will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the
more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies.
And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.
Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted
on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation,
opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the
modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively
honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just
a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.
my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen.
the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against
special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't
have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump
the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would
calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts
that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore
the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance
is neocon.
In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to
the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump
did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation
is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah
off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.
Gah.
Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently.
The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans
may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving
that way. The Judiciary and lawyers – a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse
– simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly)
strive for objective impartiality.
The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if
they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin
are doing.
Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different
levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:
Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time
by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit
from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech.
capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks
of the public mass media.
It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative
media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda
and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001
– not because of any links to US created al Qaeda – and a big chunk of that plan is still being
carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.
While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know
a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all
enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital
weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the
number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has
been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And
the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well.
For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been
sweet.
Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food.
Everything else is gravy.
Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today
but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff
we'd be happier.
We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles
and all these lies make society.
Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was
a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations,
the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden
.
Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)
I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more,
even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling
at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US
it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch
them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters,
paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable
intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).
Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed
the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues
of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing
that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed
to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people
are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not
Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.
I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious.
That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schäuble's austerity terror was
equally bad, but not many people understand that.
I believe it was Iraq. When they named the 2003 invasion Operation Iraqi Liberation, or
O.I.L. , all the pretense of it being for any legit reason was gone.
Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.
But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in
shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?
I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets,
by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen
fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?
Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama
twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an
isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America
is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed.
Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof
that this is the awful truth.
It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when
someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to
watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take
him down.
Ratings are to broadcast or print media as shareholder value is to corporation - the overriding
metric that blots out any reponsibility to the commons.
and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:
"The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style
hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most
grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed
by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing
to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's
worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions,
an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in
the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.
"Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily
banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so
much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself.
As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for
the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been
made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means
necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.
"As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly
exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation
cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas
moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use
of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined
the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was
ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was
one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant,
and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain
Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"
But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one
of these preening monsters!
Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing
all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain
that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There
universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off
focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning
he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have
not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.
Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called
Westminster paedophile ring – the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have
lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not
all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control
certain people.
In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian,
from journalist Jonathon Cook.
So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired
Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.
I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to
heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be
on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then
the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining.
That's a recipe for two years of nothing.
On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play
is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach
around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different
deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim
nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation
to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.
I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban
that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice
Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what
should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable
next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to
purge their power.
On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The
only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end
a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and
Iran. Israel will not be pleased.
My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them
to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven
with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame
their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There
is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should
soon spring back to life.
Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening
is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community
in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.
Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access
Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen
Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the
seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team
Trump and the GOPe.
I like the "offer the survivors a weak reacharound". Reminds me of Vietnam, where we would
napalm a village and then fall over ourselves making sure the burn victims all got Band-Aids
The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not
going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.
Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly,
he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who
just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that
purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation
of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle
of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical
period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when
engaged critically:
TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back
US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even
more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively
transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation
– of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at
large.
I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like
a fiddle.
The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia'
author of the blog Economic Undertow:
One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being
the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation
that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance
on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself:
he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does
not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out
of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This
is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes.
The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon
which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations
and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.
I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is
it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something
pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that
we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with
him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.
Another false note–"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic
and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and
hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish
as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I
grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with
horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.
This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude
to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any
category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even
have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to
join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I
don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.
After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard
to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some
liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes,
as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed
Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently
wrong.
You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent
contemporary application of the term
On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from
seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other
religion for thats matter.
I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.
On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia
in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think
it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia
is a form of bigotry– whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on
the circumstances.
I do not believe in the corruption of language. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom
is to call things by their proper names.
Are you by the same sloppy logic going to cal bias against women and gays "racism"?
Islamophobia is indeed not racist. Arabs, many American and African blacks, Persians (who
are not Arabians) and Indonesians among others are followers of Islam.
We already have perfectly good works, like "bigotry," "bias," and "discrimination".
I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot,
but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes
and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism.
If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.
But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either.
They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying
to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently
evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent.
That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some
carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions
often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why
antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged
race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based
on a clear understanding of biology.
So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it
as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.
I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.
The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty,
unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection
from the original point.. ..
File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can
be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.
In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while
simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.
Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point.
However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.
Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the
jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any
refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry
come out.
People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis
with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If
we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death
in the countries which produce the refugees.
>People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here.
And where are these rights enumerated? I don't recognize "moral rights" beyond those associated
with copyright (and I am not particularly fond of those, either).
So the fact that we are bombing civilians and helping the Saudis plunge Yemen into a famine
is something you don't question, just the right of our victims to come here?
The legacy of Obama's incompetence in foreign policy does not obligate American citizens
to accept - or to foist upon their posterity - changes in the demographic make-up of our populace.
I'm still interested in learning where you discovered this moral right to move here
In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this
context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy.
Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway,
my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have
moral obligations to the victims.
And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.
LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief,
and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of
guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't
accept Monsanto poison.
"You're black!" said the pot to the kettle
"People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral
right to come here."
Bullsht.
The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and
in that case only in a "just war" context if at all
Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or
the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences
allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations
at all– we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the
right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest
military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own
idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military
want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.
I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have
no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to
steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.
The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't
discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to
continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers
of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having,
because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.
Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.
"Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough."
That we'll agree on. Maybe another day you can elucidate on why you bother writing when
you could find an airbase and stand on the runway, to stop the bombing.
No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".
Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation
should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those
nations are under no obligation to do so.
Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the
refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What
has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come
up with a decent metaphor or simile.
But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another
nation if the nation decides to say "No".
So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter
at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.
You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say
we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude
as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other
countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here.
That will not stand.
The Athenians had no good reason to suppose that the Gods would not favor them.
There was nothing in their laws or beliefs to suggest otherwise.
Similarly, there is nothing in our laws that requires us to accept population transfers
because this or that President drops bombs in a far away country on people of whom we know
nothing.
Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we
bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say
that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty
much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).
Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds
about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the
President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American
society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked
Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They
recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts,
they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become
too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation
and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared
of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the
Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the
way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're
going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites
and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly,
we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.
"Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media.
"
The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news"
story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including
well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term
"fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy
skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live
and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency
sir?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA
And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch
hunt. Now where was I going with this ?
I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather,
it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral
origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in
box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country).
The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race,
who are we to say otherwise?
Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e.,
Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino
consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.
But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal
register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level
of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.
" . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is.
We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent
people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever
the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday
destination." .
Dear Raul,
Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain
like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.
"We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always
seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2)
Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves
off playing Russian Roulette.
I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this
imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify
what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect
gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does
not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM
tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .
I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he
reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has
killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he
might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his
impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.
What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the
UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black
hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly
and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness'
and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their
voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the
people of that they point to. For profit.
On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin
"But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There
are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"
I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine
if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the
world .
"... US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market. ..."
"... Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices. ..."
"... The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil). ..."
"... In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s. ..."
"... Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal. ..."
"... Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook. ..."
"... From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter. ..."
"... Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now? ..."
"... Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it. ..."
"... At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil." ..."
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily
tax the proceeds, and Ukraine was applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by
sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean
peninsula from Ukraine by force. This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international
law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, Exxon Mobil could only pump oil from approximately
3 of those 60+ million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and
as of today, there's information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove
all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.
The Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars
from that much untapped oil, all pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned
by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just for this deal to go through."
______
Now, a flood of oil on the market from Russia would likely keep US oil prices down, thus hurting
US drillers right?
If one is conspiracy-minded, could that be part of the deal, too? Russia uses low oil prices
to take down US oil production, and then tries assert itself as one of the countries left standing.
In about 1780, Catherine the Great and the Ottoman Empire agreed that the Crimea was a part of
Russia. [Yes, there was conflict for years prior (as with any other piece of land in the world).]
In 1954, in honor of the 300th Anniversary of the Republic of Ukraine being a part of Russia,
Nikita Krushchev "gave" the governance of the Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine. It was not constitutional
under the Russian constitution. The UN said nothing about it, nor any other international law
body. Krushchev later trumped up an approval without even a quorum.
So the Republic of Ukraine seceded from Russia and took the Crimea with it. In the US, when
states (republics) seceded [having been states for much less than 100 years, let alone over 300
years] the rest of the states killed as many people as they could until they "agreed to rejoin
the union." People might not like it, but the vast majority of people living in the Crimea had
ties to mother Russia, and they voted to go back to being governed by Russia. So, Putin accepted.
And please, let's not get into an argument about the fairness of elections, unless your candidate
wins.
So, what would we do if Obama gave South Carolina to Florida, and then Florida seceded. I guess
that the rest of the states would just say "shucks, we lost South Carolina too." Especially if
South Carolina had the only warm water port in the US [the Crimea has the only warm water port
in Russia]. The rest of the ports are in the North Sea, etc. And, yes, that is a critical military
point.
"This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world." That
is a pathetic joke! Okay – let's let the US South secede again, since the Cival War broke every
international law in the free world and was exactly the same as Hitler's imperialism.
Just one clarification: the ports in Crimea are not the only warm water ports in Russia.
Russia has several other ports in the Black Sea and Azov Sea.
Other ports are in the Baltic Sea, Arctic seas and the Pacific; not in the North Sea
Perhaps I am wrong, but are those other ports large enough and deep enough for military use [which
I failed to state clearly]? I beleive that Russia still operated their huge military port in the
Crimea even after the Ukraine seceded and prior to Russia taking back the Crimea.
Sevastopol, the largest port in Crimea, was founded by Catherine the Great as Russia's main military
port in the Black Sea.
It had special status when Crimea was part of the Soviet Ukraine, and also when Ukraine became
independent. Russia had a long-term arrangement with Ukraine for using Sevastopol.
Russia also has a large military port in Novorossiisk (Russian part of Caucasus); but you are
right, Sevastopol is deeper, bigger and more convenient.
Rurik set up rule in Novgorod, giving more provincial towns to his brothers. There is some
ambiguity even in the Primary Chronicle about the specifics of the story, "hence their paradoxical
statement 'the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes.'" However,
archaeological evidence such as "Frankish swords, a sword chape and a tortoiseshell brooch" in
the area suggest that there was, in fact, a Scandinavian population during the tenth century at
the latest.[3] The "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project" of FamilyTreeDNA commercial genetic genealogy
company reports that Y-DNA testing of the descendants of Rurikids suggests their non-Slavic origin.
Kiev was the Capital of Russia when Moscow was still a hunting camp
It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread.
Exxon Mobil didn't lease any land in Russia. It is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project in
Russia' Far East (very far from Ukraine); and oil produced from this project is exported by sea
(Pacific ocean).
Exxon's JV with Rosneft has also found an oil field in Kara Sea (Russian Arctic), but this
project was suspended due to the sanctions.
In the past Russia was exporting a small part of its oil by the "Druzhba" ("Friendship") pipeline
through Ukraine and was paying normal transporation fee, not taxes.
Now all Russian oil is exported via Russian oil terminals near Novorossiisk (Black Sea) and
Ust-Luga and Primorsk (on the Baltic Sea). New transporation routes include East-Siberia – Pacific
Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline linking Russian oil fields in Siberia with the ports on Pacific Ocean
and with China's Daking; as well as oil terminals in the Arctic (Varandey).
If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Rosneft and Exxon will be able to develop their joint
project in the Artcic, but oil found there certainly is not worth "half a trillion (500 Billion)
dollars', and cannot seriously change the global supply-demand balance.
clueless gave you a good answer on Crimea
BTW, 1) there is no oil terminal in Crimea;
2) Russian oil is taxed in Russia
"It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry,
but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread."
I never use Facebook as a source of information on the oil and gas industry. The topic never
comes up among my Facebook friends or my news sources on Facebook. When I want gas and oil info,
I use Google to look at legitimate news sources from industry observers.
I just wanted some people's thoughts on that. Your reaction actually tells me a lot about how
you think about it.
We've had quite a few discussions here about how politics, both domestic and international,
shapes oil production, so I was just inquiring about any insight. I'm rather surprised that you
are telling me not to even post a question on the subject. Touchy, maybe?
The relationship between Trump and Russia has triggered some questions, not just among Democrats,
but also the GOP. And some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil.
"some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil."
The only "tie in" is Exxon's frozen investments in the Pobeda (Victory) field in the Kara Sea.
But that's no secret; you can find information on this project on Exxon's and Rosneft's websites
and in international business media.
The Sakhalin-1 project is not covered by the sanctions and is being successfully developed.
"Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?"
US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of
Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two
areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes
will not be sufficient to flood the market.
Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding
the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices.
I think Exxon could re-enter the project if the sanctions are lifted. If sanctions are not lifted
for several years, Rosneft will likely develop this field independently, but it would take more
time as Rosneft lacks experience in offshore projects.
The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without
foreign participation (already producing oil).
In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively
slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates
more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s.
"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million
acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the
United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine"
Almost all pipelines through Ukraine are nat gas. Not oil. There is some minor oil flow. "All"
is just profoundly absurd.
Russia's oil output is going to Asia and northern Europe via Transneft lines to Poland and
Belarus. Not through Ukraine. Haven't looked for where those Exxon leases are, but I'm pretty
sure that's the Rosneft joint venture up around the Arctic.
Nowhere near Ukraine. This is all just completely wrong.
FedBook, er I mean Facebook, is a ghetto of sentimentality. I suggest deleting from it. I joined
Facebook once for a very short time and the only thing I learnt from it was that most of my friends
are idiots.
Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk
and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port
in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as
far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a
big deal.
Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the
basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook.
From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely
as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's
rather low on the probability meter.
Again from what I've read (numerous sources) the Russian oil fields are being extracted just
about as heavily as they can be at this time, as are the Saudi fields, again relying on a number
of different sources.
Without getting too "tinfoil-hatty" I'd say most of the stories about the global oil markets
which promise big bursts of production from (heretofore undisclosed) big new oil fields are in
the category of "fake news." These stories serve to boost U.S. consumer confidence and U.S. automobile
and light truck sales, but contradict what people in the industry (such as Art Berman, Tadeusz
Patzek et al.) are saying about future supply.
Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed
to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now?
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in
regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia
vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government
does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now.
What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the
world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government
knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would
motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government
fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United
States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting
concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in
Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This
is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher
than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of
most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia
to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot
be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there.
This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with
the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth,
they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum
and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system
is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and
I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects
though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were
mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent
wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping
offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift. I don't think their fields
are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities – probably
to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually
choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
"... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
"... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
"... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
"... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
"... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
"... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... pussyhat revolution ..."
"... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
"... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
"... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
"... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
"... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
"... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
"... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
"... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
"... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
"... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
"... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
"... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United
States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "
Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the
USA right now.
US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes,
according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department
are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador
Sergey Kislyk.
According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of
National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.
He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically
high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same
intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is
absolutely amazing.
Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate
a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo
(a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).
That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the
KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal
matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet
Nomenklatura , roughly 3
million people (and even bigger mistake!).
But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who
by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the
trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.
By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone
conversations with Vladimir Putin.
Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon
This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has
gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President
and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.
In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the "
pussyhat revolution " as
explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists,
you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat
revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image
on the right shows.
This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that
the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began
by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.
This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media
is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".
Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama
is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not
once, but twice.
What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!
How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for
rebellion and
sedition ?
So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they
were well covered by the media:
Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody
is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.
One more example:
Remember the pretty face of
Nayirah , the
Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti
incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador
to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of
Neda , who
" died on TV " in Iran?
Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who
wrote a letter to President
Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian
children".
Want even more proof?
Okay, click here
and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent
Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select
just two:
The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump
the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated
into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA
and Trump is the ultimate Evil.
This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.
My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having
accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down
and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment,
overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.
One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those
behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution
of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is,
indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown
and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth
against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how,
formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British
MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply
traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they
simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures
have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their
own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to
produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can
be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.
The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only
hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.
Can he do that?
Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt
with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction
of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon
and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they
have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically
complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them
out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which
protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card:
General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President
will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces
to ensure "collaboration".
However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful
weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.
Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have
known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated
in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral
and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way:
while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis),
the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain
the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash
and burn into the scandal.
9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands,
possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real
investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into
911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political
handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately
give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful
man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use
the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately
find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination.
And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).
I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of
course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal:
the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin
once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".
You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.
First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state
will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule
and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional
investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail
Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the
institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion
floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using
nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear
attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following
signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot
be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes
and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war
anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the
US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously
on any topic?
Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?!
Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war,
including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.
There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.
Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished
thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will
he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?
I don't know.
I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture
perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the
rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular"
military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and
JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The
good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are
usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces).
SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.
Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against
the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough.
Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and
time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there
is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically
diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.
One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use
the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was
a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews
of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply
did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now
if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that
he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street"
take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists,
all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve
their goals.
The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear
and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to
use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of
the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.
I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to
take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never
to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy
it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia
on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions
who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as
a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which
this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred
not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what
I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have
now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think
of as "deplorables
It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American
masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian
equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "
быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen"
or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years
are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down
in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction
whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class
interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will
not get away with that again in 2017.
"... "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting. ..."
"... The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion. ..."
"... Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism." ..."
"... Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation. ..."
"... Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions." ..."
Putin, Trump, in 'Positive' Call, Say
Want to
Cooperate in Syria: Kremlin
https://nyti.ms/2jIzuKa
NYT - REUTERS - January 28, 2017
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald
Trump said in a "positive" phone call on Saturday they favored their two countries cooperating in
Syria to defeat Islamic State, the Kremlin said in a statement.
In an eagerly awaited phone call, the first since Trump's inauguration, the two men stressed the
importance of restoring economic ties between the two countries and of stabilizing relations, the
Kremlin said.
U.S.-Russia relations had hit a post-Cold War low under Barack Obama and Trump has made clear
he wants a rapprochement with Moscow if he can get along with Putin.
"Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American
cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding
a possible time and place for a meeting.
There was no mention in the statement that the possibility of Trump easing sanctions on Moscow
imposed over the Ukraine conflict had been mentioned, a subject widely expected to be raised.
The Kremlin said Trump and Putin had agreed to establish "partner-like cooperation" when it came
to global issues such as Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, tensions on the Korean peninsula and the
Israeli-Arab conflict.
Trump's stance on Russia has been under intense scrutiny from critics who say he was elected with
help from Russian intelligence, an allegation he denies. His detractors have also accused him of
being too eager to make an ally of Putin.
For Putin, an easing of Western sanctions would be a major coup ahead of next year's presidential
election as it would help the economy recover.
In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an
hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US
President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to
cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to
mending bilateral economic ties.
"Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint
efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a
constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis," as
well as "build up partner cooperation" on a wide range of
international issues, according to a Kremlin statement
following their discussion.
The White House said that the "positive" conversation was
"a significant start to improving the relationship between
the United States and Russia that is in need of repair."
"Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that
after today's call the two sides can move quickly to tackle
terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern," the
White House statement added.
After speaking with Chancellor Merkel for 45 minutes
@POTUS is now onto his 3rd of 5 head of government calls,
speaking w Russian Pres Putin pic.twitter.com/RPAWIgcO2C
- Sean Spicer (@PressSec) January 28, 2017Q
"The Presidents have spoken in favor of establishing a
real coordination between the US and Russian actions in order
to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria,"
the Kremlin statement said.
The two leaders also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict as well as Iran's nuclear program. "Major aspects of
the Ukrainian crisis have been also touched upon," the
Kremlin announced.
The leaders of Russia and the US have noted a need to
restore economic ties "to stimulate" further development of
the relationship between the nations. Putin and Trump also
agreed to initiate a process to "work out possible dates and
venue of their personal meeting."
Telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump
https://t.co/mjp9Tta1sE
- President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) 28 января 2017 г.Q
During the conversation the Presidents also expressed their
desire to "maintain regular personal contacts," the Kremlin
statement said.
The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian
counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and
prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm
feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the
feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the
Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one
occasion.
Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported
the United States, was its ally during the two world wars,
and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting
international terrorism."
On Friday, speaking at a joint briefing with British Prime
Minister Theresa May, Trump said he hoped he would have a
"fantastic relationship" with Russia's president, but
understands that might not happen. Trump has said previously
that he would welcome Moscow's involvement in a joint effort
to battle Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
"I don't know Putin, but if we can get along with
Russia that's a great thing. It's good for Russia; it's
good for us; we go out together and knock the hell out of
ISIS, because that's a real sickness," he said in an
interview with Fox News.
Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering
closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in
Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for
failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations
between the two countries have been marred in recent years
over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis
and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in
November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over
the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be
on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue
was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the
conversation.
Citing an unnamed source in the White House, a researcher
at the Atlantic Council analytical center, Fabrice Pothier,
wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday that the Trump
administration "has an executive order ready" to lift the
restrictions on Moscow, but Trump said on Friday that it is
"very early to be talking about that."
However, earlier in January, Trump said that he would
consider lifting restrictions if Moscow cooperates with
Washington on certain issues, such as nuclear arms reduction.
"They have sanctions on Russia - let's see if we can make
some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear
weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially,
that's part of it," Trump was quoted as saying by the Times.
Trump also said in one of his Tweets that "having a good
relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing,"
warning only "fools" would think otherwise. However, several
US Senators proposed a bill last week that would make it
impossible for the US President to lift restrictions without
congressional approval.
Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a
potential "reset" with the US under the new administration.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no
"naive expectations" and is under no "illusions."
"... "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ..."
"... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron
Suskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task
for working in "the reality-based community." He defined that as believing "that solutions emerge
from your judicious study of discernible reality." Rove then asserted that this was no longer
the way in which the world worked:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which
you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do." (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct.
17, 2004).
This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government.
But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that
time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because
of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated
country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack
Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the
Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing 'spreading democracy'
by overthrowing regimes. America's mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated
the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney.
This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness
they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the
minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious
when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political
and 'Enlightenment' achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America's foreign-policy
entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to
Washington's tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his
predecessor and Wall Street's robber barons.
With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed
– pass off as a popular revolution the coup d'état they fomented in the Ukraine. And because of an
unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world
cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment
on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.
As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington's enemies as their own. Hence the ease
with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions
against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian
propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean.
In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible
in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which
killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of 'almost definitive'
findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied
by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the
government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow's challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose
agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great
indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.
As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story
demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that
the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation
in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in
Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians
as violators of Western values. Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts
you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police
violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered
by mainstream media.
These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political
accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that
are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped
into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For
Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but
to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe. For Europeans, at least those
in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation
and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already
there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller
scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include
the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from
behind the Hindu Kush.
Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl
Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists,
but whose reality is not questioned without risking one's reputation. The geopolitical picture that
they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one's curiosity on
a leash and one's sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official
reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world,
with assistance from think tanks and academia.
But the question does reappear in one's thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned
editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all?
Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the
latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they're saying?
Not all of them are believers, I know that from off the record conversations. But there appears to
be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions,
and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes referred to
as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This
could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not
generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard
higher education.
A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you
deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once
you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you. If you are a journalist
and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk
of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.
Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into
unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on
the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were
saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined.
For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified
by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian
, the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist .
Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on
the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings
of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At
the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic
is about how Putin's meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.
The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion
and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic
book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with
facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark
or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment
values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned
and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.
How could Rove's predictions so totally materialize? There's a simple answer: 'they' got away
with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely
to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The 'they' stands for those individuals
and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination
depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with
excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the
powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what
the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job
or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.
The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation.
Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion
with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering
of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark
Lane's Rush To Judgment , the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report
on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable
category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to
writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who've recently reminded us that the pejorative use
of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun
in 1967.
So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before
Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I
see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.
We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the
absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone
of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to
take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded:
yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial
law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings
still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and
so they reaffirm that they still belong to 'sane' humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials
in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling
of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official
story. Why throw in fairly common lines like "I have no time for truthers" unless you feel that this
is where the shoe pinches?
You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart
people will say that they "will not go there", which brings to mind the "here be dragons" warning
on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that
there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the
essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped
working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to
what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even
academia is likely to come to an end.
So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized
political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs
and the American role in it into proper perspective.
Mapping the motives of those who decide "not to go there" may be a way to begin breaking through
this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family
to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable
expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social
abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat
sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar
one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of
wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused
by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America's history can be compared to
it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?
What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used
to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where
they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who
raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying
at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst
of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips
over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his
audience.
The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation.
Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you
with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false
flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could
be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally
left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police? What
of their death through police shooting before they can be interrogated? Could these be taunting signals
of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the
police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and
necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.
How can anyone quarrel with Rove's prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying
newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very
clear: you have no choice!
A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president
of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that "Intelligence" leads
a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible
government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?
Karel van Wolferen
is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has
published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages
and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad
, one of Holland's leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over
the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post
, The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous
other newspapers and magazines.
"Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."
You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve
some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following:
in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more
dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And
who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.
Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff.
That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher
then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia
as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel
Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger
with a typical neoconservative ambitions?
This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation
is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.
He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization.
It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own
agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.
Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible
that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from
being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most
self-defeating feature. "
Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
"... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
"... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
"... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
"... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
"... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
"... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering
all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the
Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position
to take action. The other good news is
Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose
our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ".
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking
the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary
Clinton been elected.
The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and
on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater.
Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted
when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at
least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that "
imperialism
is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to
suddenly renounce imperialism.
But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.
For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the
immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years
of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum
decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist
Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence
of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which
the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people
(Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American
plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to
simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the
Neocons always try to.
I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis
and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption
of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because
whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear
confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion
that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions
of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is
21 st
Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was
so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism"
is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects
like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did
sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You
could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like
Putin too?
There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling
his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings
words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the
understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the
Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and
Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly
what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people
first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill
will sound like music to the Russian ears.
Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized
world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the
Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA
is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh,
then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police
and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical
Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.
There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited
only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire
planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a
direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just
like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started
by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like
Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.
The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an
alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because
he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon
crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong
desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial
national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree
upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.
So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real",
and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies.
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal
enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring
himself a supporter of Donald Trump ,
I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is
certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that
this shall not be me.
Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?
Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite:
for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to
multinational capital being World Hegemon
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased
by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to
save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a
new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street,
and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government
puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I
have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report
I suspect.
Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed
per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like
the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under
Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company
with the trillions already there.
Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and
the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least
half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo
I suspect it will be the later
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
Anonymous:
I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his
book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers.
That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!
"After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.
All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected
you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and
goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example,
will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state
that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states
and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic
collapse.
None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let
go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held,
a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues
(missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road
to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something
like a war.
So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.
The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.
The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average
of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.
Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion
in 2000.
Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled
from 9.3 trillion in 2000.
A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its
GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.
If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt
and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in
serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save
the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new
course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its
really almost ten years to late for this.
Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising
income taxes.
And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we
should be able to dodge the bullet.
I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which
are highly successful.
It is so important to us all.
I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job
to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart
a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.
There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.
That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit,
and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.
The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs
about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US
(more US taxpayers).
The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state"
that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors
saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the
"Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.
At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.
When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream
media like.
So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend
Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography
( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.
He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white
hate groups.
I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by
seeing him called a "rabid maniac".
I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something
about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it
on the idiot box or reading a transcript.
If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially)
corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that
politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.
The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible
Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech
could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning
from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common:
their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs
like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned
and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
@Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy,
"great again"
While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama
before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration
that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician
FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal
by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.
Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but
if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't
appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that
some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because
it makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over
two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back
in the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people
, our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are ..
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act
of deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire
oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls
and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" .
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the
good people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as
they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
300 Words
@Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent
to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who
elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship
and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."
But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
And that's what it's all about.
Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.
"Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting
their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way,
all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism
and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."
That seems to be true.
I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another
letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal
Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents
arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument
basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism,"
I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that
you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't
show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly
Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was
the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck
in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in
English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German
does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They
could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite
startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next
LRB . . .
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)
These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion
of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books
and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even
99.9%, on that.
This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from
past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief
that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically
zilch to do with imperialism?
Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their
internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like
David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and
I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike "
renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country
(the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of
respect.
" one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far
more dangerous than any external foe. "
"Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that
only dumb fish would be attracted to.
I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political
commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.
"the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from
the face of the Earth".
What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before
you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.
Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European
interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated
and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian
conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their
own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I
grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist
methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized",
the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So
why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace
with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?
The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant
to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted'
minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position
in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the
iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.
The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should
ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.
Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has
refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.
The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it
makes them accountable.
The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.
Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two
trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in
the plus column.
Do you want to know how ?
He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our
country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize
this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry
and the values that make us who we are.....
He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of
deception , so that it may never happen again.
Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs
who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .
Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and
seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......
then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars
If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio
is right back in the" plus column" ....
Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T
Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.
Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".
Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good
people who would never "lie us into war".
This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care
of business at home, and clean house when necessary.
This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they
would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.
Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?
Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability
Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by
underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope
that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.
One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering
in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in
seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department.
Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere
attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.
So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?
Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than
his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion,
and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure.
I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge
that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that
wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him
in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never
recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.
He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept,
but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit
in the process, if not the rest of the world.
That does not rule out that his naiveté may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than
once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures,
and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.
Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have.
Is it enough?
"... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
"... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
"... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone
of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians
chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.
Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their
country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American
warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant
Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley
had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas
expansion gripped the United States.
This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation.
The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign
policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.
When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether
we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether
we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center
of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both
sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions
of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into
faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed,
and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates
enemies!
Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the
national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese."
Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles
Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign
land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."
The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into
a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we
enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one
more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.
At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a
resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example
of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we
have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path
which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared.
"Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted
by acclamation.
At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas
expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist
rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time,
on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii,
but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the
future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power
and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.
On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate
had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of
1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.
Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street
to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate
abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by
acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist,
since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples
against their will.
At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of
Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899,
President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate
over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American
people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from
Massachusetts.
George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted,
must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after
the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor
Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new
doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can
stand up and be a man?' "
Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate
that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit
to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or
feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and
liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."
From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information
to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published
a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience.
Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another:
"Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern
themselves?"
On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by
just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately
in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley
faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of
the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League
and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose
as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate
power.
A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday
on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest
banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential
goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the
United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to
the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American
masters, but of their American emancipators."
"Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every
aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."
These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers,
he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the
age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never
did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."
Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor
Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899,
both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street.
"We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!"
Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American
soldiers.
"I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said.
"When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"
Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections.
War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems.
The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.
"Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot
Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."
That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American
intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new
administration in Washington and, through it, the world.
As Stephen Cohen noted Kremlin bating was adopted by Hillary campaign -- they wanted to fight
again Trump and Putin, instead Trump and Pence. That did not them any good.
Notable quotes:
"... 2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media. ..."
"... You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot). ..."
Whether you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Putin, or of Russia in general, it is
people like Stephen Cohen - who has studied Russia all his life and actually knows what he's
talking about - to whom you should listen. Compared to the media men who have Cohen on their
shows, he is like an adult talking to children.
I hate modern football
As a Finn i have been forced to learn the history of Russia in perspective of Finland (and
Sweden).
And my conclusion has become more stable that Finland is for Russia nothing more than
buffer: a country causing no problems but lots of good things IF THERE ARE NO MILITARY FORCES
OF ENEMY GREAT POWER.
After that basic geopolitical fact it's clear why Finland is not NATO country and hope will
never come even there are lots of Finnish media pundits suggesting it.
Pfirtzer -> I hate modern football
Well older people have still the idea America liberated them and other uninformed people
find Russia to bo the enemy because of MH17 plain that was shot down above Ukraine.
But in fairness there are many dutch people who want to have a good relation with Russia
and having trade with Russia, because it's good to trade, and talk , war is just good for the
Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Bushes and co
Look a booklet https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html War Is a Racket
google it, your eyes will open what is going on in the world!
Jason Roggasch
No proof no facts JUST assertions from one of the most destructive forces the world has
ever known THE CIA
Patricia Leary
"It's CLEAR that Russia is meddling in our election" Dude! Clarity without ANY facts? Zero
evidence? Seriously??
Here's what IS crystal clear and is backed by COPIOUS undisputed evidence, and nary a word
from corporate neocon Obama or his MSM lapdogs - Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the
Superdelegates criminal, corrupt election fraud, defiling our election integrity, during the
primaries, backed by huge corporate interests to ensure that an anti-corporatist like Bernie
Sanders, DID NOT gain the nomination.
Had Sanders been nominated, he would have won the presidency hands down! They knew that!
The corporate billionaires ruling the world COULD NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE THAT! Yes. There was
meddling but it wasn't a foreign entity. It was the United States of Corporations!
Susan Joy Worker
why should anyone believe Clinton and the Globalist-controlled media? They lie about
everything.
The Leaks have revealed extensive crimes - we now need a Full investigation of ALL of those
crimes.
Then Mrs Clinton can explain herself at a fair trial. If that leads to jail or execute, so
be it.
Let us move the discussion on to her crimes, and who conspired with her in those crimes.
I am tired of the distractions
Alex Trefall
As a Polish national I have no great love for Russia. But in recent years I recognized that
what I consider "my version of history" may not be the same for someone else.
Meaning: history is not facts but rather its mostly political fiction mixed with some
facts. I don't claim to know who has the proverbial answer, or who is right.
All I see is that in the last 15 years, if not longer it's the US that invaded more
countries and caused countless deaths in the name of their own self interest ( democracy -
freedom/slavery to consume whatever we like in whatever quantity ).
Trying to blame Russia for everything just seems pathetic regardless how good or bad Putin
really is.
B M
USA governments have been in the pocket of the Globalist Arms Manufacturers because it is
worth trillions of dollars to them.Its all about $$$$$$.People are expendable.
We now have a chance for peace but Trump is in danger for attempting to break this evil
establishment.
ameighable
Julian Assange has said that the leaks were not from state operatives and definitely not
Russsia. A former UK ambassador says that he personally few to DC to personally receive the
WikiLeaks material. Julian Assange suggested in an interview with Dutch TV that Seth Rich, a
DNC employee who was murdered not long after the leaks, was the leaker.
Furthermore, the ambassador said that all published information was legally obtained by
disgruntled insiders.
Vlasta Molak
There are 4 totalitarian, supremacist, apartheid and imperialistic IDEOLOGIES, which had
threatened advances of the Western civilization: Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Islam, of
which Islam is the most current and dangerous, as it is worst than Nazism. Communism fell
under its own weight, Fascism and Nazism were defeated in WWII (although it exists in small
enclaves) but Islam is invading the West with the help of treasonous Western politicians, such
as b. Hussein Obama, Angela Merkel, EC and even Pope.
Trump recognizes this and his choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillleson is a great one, as
Mr. Tillerson is a problem solver, just as Trump is, who listens to everybody, including those
who opposed him and defamed him. this is a characteristic of a GREAT leader. Putin has a PhD
in Economics who lived in Dresden while working for KGB and Putin is aware of the danger of
Islam to Western civilization.
Vlasta Molak
Wahbis RULE Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam in Mecca and therefore are just like the war
lord Mohamed role models for ALL Muslim men who have to come for Hajj at least once in a
lifetime. It is the IDEOLOGY of Islam that is the ROOT cause of terrorism and violence
nowadays.
444suse
2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on
trust on our western mainstream media.
You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq
War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot).
Brian on NYT: "There are other points of view, including the point of view of Donald Trump,
that do get on their pages."
LOL, This made me laugh aloud. "On their pages" - to be misreported and ridiculed. The NY
Times is definitely part of the problem and is a key part of the spin machine. I was happy to
hear that they will let enough employees go to free up 8 floors. May the shrinking continue in
2017. It will save the "good guys" from nuking the place and all who work there.
"... Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
"... "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ..."
"... He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap. ..."
"... Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders. ..."
"... "In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media. ..."
"... "Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story." ..."
"... For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record. ..."
"... Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good. ..."
"... Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law ..."
"... The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing. ..."
"... In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. ..."
"... Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs." ..."
"... Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger. ..."
"... His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes. ..."
"... The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich. ..."
"... The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house. ..."
"... Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government. ..."
"... Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior. ..."
"... The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research. ..."
"... The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow. ..."
The hole in the U.S. intelligence community's "high confidence" about Russia "hacking" Democratic
emails has always been who gave the material to WikiLeaks, as President Obama admitted, notes ex-CIA
analyst Ray McGovern.
Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to
blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the
U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent
obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions
now are dispelling some of the clouds.
Does the Russian government hack, as many other governments do? Of course. Did it hack the emails
of the Democratic National Committee? Almost certainly, though it was likely not alone in doing so.
In the Internet age, hacking is the bread and butter of intelligence agencies. If Russian intelligence
did not do so, this would constitute gross misfeasance, especially since the DNC was such easy pickings
and the possibility of gaining important insights into the U.S. government was so high. But that
is not the question.
It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC's dirty
tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was "the Russians"
who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community doesn't know.
At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: "the conclusions of the
intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks
was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked
." [Emphasis added}
It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs.
He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based
on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information
was in the hands of WikiLeaks."
Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about
the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would
represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply
presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make
the leap.
WikiLeaks Account
As I suggested
to RT viewers right after the last press conference, the reason WikiLeaks might have been "not
witting" could be that it was quite sure it was not a "conduit" for "hacking" by the Russians or
anyone else. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that the Russian government was not the
source and it's significant that President Obama stopped short of contradicting him. It is also clear
that WikiLeaks, in the past, has obtained LEAKED information from U.S. whistleblowers, such as Chelsea
Manning.
Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the
two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders.
After the Jan. 18 press conference - what Murray called the "Stunning Admission from Obama on
Wikileaks" - Murray wrote:
"In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that
they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely
evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months,
in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have
been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.
"Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and
not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face.
William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would
be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports
released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking'
story."
So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which
he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate
ad nauseam .
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for
a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS).
Sally Snyder , January 20, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Here is an interesting look at an essay written by Barack Obama when he was a student at Columbia
University:
It is so ironic that he is now the only POTUS to serve his full term in a state of war, yet
another inconsistency in his persona.
Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for the link Sally Snyder. They can't be the same person. Can they?
Zachary Smith , January 20, 2017 at 7:33 pm
"So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation
at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate
ad nauseam."
Not me. In my opinion Obama has been "playing nice" for his final few days and hours in the
hope citizens and historians will make that "leap" and conclude he was a nice guy at heart after
all.
The Moon of Alabama site had this viewpoint:
The DNC emails "that were leaked" – not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies
led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the
main purpose?
That blogger could be right and I might be wrong. For whatever reason Obama finally decided
to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record.
William Binney was right. A leak, not a hacked was done to the DNC.
Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Thank you Ray McGovern and The VIPS for keeping us informed about this most important event.
It has the potential to expose much wrongdoing affecting our fragile democracy. Watching it being
"played out" in real time is a great asset of this remarkable site where truth and decent conversation
are carried out on a daily basis
backwardsevolution , January 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm
Ray McGovern – another great article! Keep up the good work. Can't wait to find out what Trump
says to the CIA tomorrow. Maybe Trump needs to take along Craig Murray.
Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm
backwardsevolution, please see my comment below about Craig Murray.
That would be awesome! It won't happen of course. But it would be awesome.
Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 20, 2017 at 8:37 pm
what i find truly fascinating is that nobody is giving any attention to the FACT that the DNC
cheated to make Hillary the nominee in the general elections!! That is not hacking or leaking,
it is CHEATING which should be treated accordingly ..even B.S. himself, should have raised
hell about that but he lined up like a sheep dog behind Hillary go figure
Joe Tedesky , January 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Ah Doctor now you are talking. The hacking, leaking , and anything else along those line keep
us from talking about the real problem. That problem being Hillary's cheating. Good that you brought
it up.
The question then, is, Did those fools kill two birds with one stone? Or did they flub twice
and have the contents of two eggs on each of their faces? They thought that they could count on
the foundation of the doctrinal system, and people's having been marinated in it's bullcrap, when
they tossed out the 'Putin did it line'. They did all the evil that Wikileaks revealed and only
added to it with that nonsense that much (most?) of the public now disbelieves.
I have not had the time to look into this the way I want to and I regret that. It's not just
that I haven't had the time to examine something important and interesting. I have been misled
by Craig Murray's own account, not intentionally I'm sure. Neverthless. I took from one of his
blog posts the idea that he met the leaker, full stop. Then, as I perused comments by others (Off
Guardian I believe), I realized that it wasn't that simple. Craig met someone acting as a courier
for the leaker or leakers, apparently. The difference is not unimportant. Craig can say that he
knows that the info that Wikileaks obtained here was not 'hacked', based on his having received
it from the leaker or his or her courier. That's fair. But if that's how it went down, then I
don't want to say that Murray 'met' the leaker. I wish people would be honest. It's important.
Yes, l know all about the other stuff. William Binney's explanations for why it wasn't a hack
etc.. That's all good. But it's not my focus here. I was misled and then I misled others and my
credibility could be impacted by something like this. If my efforts to educate others is important,
then that credibility problem is important.
bob , January 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm
It appears to me Barack and Hillary simply conspired to destroy Bernie's candidacy and populism.
It is and always forever shall be about cash.
Our military is an ocean of unaccounted, bloody cash. One Nation Under God. I can tell you
this.
I guarded B-52's, F-4 Phantoms, C-5 A's, the secret Black Sheep Squadron of C-130's with no
external insignias jammed with electronics to spy on European nations etcetera. No one in their
right mind can send these gigantic machines to bomb defenseless little girls who can't even see
them they fly so high and be sane. Toys for the insatiably insane. Absolute lunacy and we glorify
it because we're trained like rats.
Sam F , January 21, 2017 at 7:33 am
Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing,
absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity
and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from
MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good.
Aristotle warned of these tyrants over democracy, causing foreign wars to create fear and to
demand power as false protectors, and to accuse their opponents of disloyalty. Our Constitutional
Convention failed to protect the tools of democracy, mass media and elections, from the economic
concentrations that did not then exist. The US needs constitutional amendments to restrict funding
of mass media and elections to limited registered individual contributions, and to improve checks
and balances.
John , January 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm
Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing
is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law
The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and
bad) lie as naturally as breathing.
Presidents' lies definitely do more damage than little people's lies, not to excuse any of
it. (I don't lie, big or white)
To get an idea how much of liar Barack Obama is (which was known early on; See the book "Hopeless
– Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion" edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank) just
give Seymour Hersh's book "The Killing Of Osama bin Laden" a read.
The book is unbalanced, in that it's as much about Syria (and the lies told, and not told,
about that) as it is about bin Laden. But it's very good, although Hersh, who isn't as independent
of the establishment as some believe him to be, unfathomably believes that Obamacare was a plus
for Obama's legacy.
Bill , January 20, 2017 at 8:52 pm
So you're almost certain that the Russian government hacked the DNC? Based on what, a guess?
The whole story has had a bad smell to it from the beginning. Assumptions don't cut it, we need
proof.
Bill Bodden , January 20, 2017 at 10:07 pm
In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits
that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material.
If "they" had practiced a daily habit of reading Consortium News "they" would have known how
Wikileaks got the information.
Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:11 am
No US citizen would have taken that into account they are emotive they do not vote on evidence
otherwise there would have been two different choices.
Tom , January 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Eh idk about this. There have been reports that the intel community already identified the
russians who gave wikileaks the data. It just hasnt been disclosed in the unclassified reports.
And what obama said there has to be looked at carefully. I dont think he's disspelling the narrative,
i think he's just saying that Wikileaks might not have known they were being used by Russia as
a conduit and means of getting the data published. Who knows though
Charlie M. , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm
Bro. Ray, thank you for giving us clarity. We will need more of it. Keep up the Good Fight.
hi, the hack is easy to figure. mr. PODESTA used a soft easy password so that anyone could
hack it. he wanted people to find the clinton email with DEPLORABLES in it. so that it would go
viral. he regarded it as having racial tones & he was pissed off at hillary about it. sanders
voters were blacks gays & hispanics etc. OBAMA & all the democrats know this but they wont mention
it because it reflects on them. i-e therefor /ergo russia the scapegoat bogeyman.or the truth
would make them look foolish.–beware the TALENT ACT /circa january 2017 .
BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , January 21, 2017 at 1:34 am
Great piece, Ray. What I especially appreciated were your comments on Obama's understated great
skill in using language.
For example, you write:
"It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical
constructs."
and later:
"the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent."
Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning
as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents.
He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically
eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs."
Great job, Ray. Showing that Obama not only was screwing around with innuendo on the issue
of Russian hacking, but that Obama's been screwing around with our minds beginning with his statements
as a Senator and continuing right until his most recent statements as POTUS.
Joe , January 21, 2017 at 3:28 am
Thank god the election is over and it's time to change wall-hangings and furniture. Civilians
also get a change in themes that have preoccupied journalists, such as the Democrats' acute case
of McCarthyism.
But now that there is a Republican in the WH, what are you guys going to write about? It's
been getting a little old .
Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:05 am
How would the 2017 Australia of the year possibly be involved isn't he under house arrest in
London?
Herman , January 21, 2017 at 4:07 am
Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of
the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against
Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting
by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA
but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents
do and speaks of making it even bigger.
His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move
their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists
policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries
simply don't behave the way he proposes.
On education reform he will find himself pilloried for trying to destroy public education,
and suggesting that parents should have choices will be derided as a violation of our Constitution
and its freedom of religion First Amendment and other charges piled upon those.
Touching preferential treatment because of race will be shouted out of the room.
In addition to those barriers to getting anything done there is the calls for America first,
which is fine except it must include a willingness to deal constructively with world problems.
For example, it is disappointing when talking about borders and immigrants, he did not connect
our role in the destruction of Middle East countries with the mass exodus from the region. Why
not point to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, even on the borders of Russia and China as places
where such extremism exists and changing our own behavior is important to combat it.
On health care, good luck. Obama gave us something which setting the move toward universal
coverage back years by creating a monster which helped those who see universal care as a threat
to their profits and power. Announcing a plan for universal coverage is far removed from the vision
Trump creates for our country of greater "freedom" and unleashing the constructive power of free
enterprise. Universal health coverage and opening up the health system to innovation could work
together but doubtful that Trump would have the power to make it happen even if he saw it as helping
the people.
So Trump, already pilloried, marginalized and boxed in, will have a hard time getting anything
done, and the interests that oppose anything progressive will not hesitate to unite, scratching
each others' back and help each other defeat whatever Trump proposes.
Trump the maverick, Trump the reformer. Would it be so.
Anon , January 21, 2017 at 7:20 am
The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost
certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly
did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government
hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned,
and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich.
Let's refuse to play the corrupt DNC game of distraction from the email contents. The story
here is that the DNC is controlled by big money and foreign powers Israel and KSA.
There is no other story on this subject, and this constant harping on the distraction story
suggests complicity in the diversion of public attention from the DNC corruption.
fudmier , January 21, 2017 at 9:56 am
The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried,
elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy.
Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits
of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the
voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power.
Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits.
Democracy demands an inverse relationship between government actors closet to "centralized
power" and the "privilege" of secrecy or privacy.
evelync , January 21, 2017 at 10:46 am
you're absolutely correct, fudmier. Bernie was trusted by Dems, Independents and Republicans
because he spoke the plain truth about our sorry state of affairs. He would've won.
The DNC, corrupt, dishonest, did not serve the large majority of people in their own party.
They conspired to disrupt Bernie's candidacy from the beginning starting with the first primary
in the Southeast when they tried to discredit Bernie with that letter from the DNC chairs of the
southern block.
It is important for VIPS to demand the proof of the so called hack.
Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny
sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument
her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only
the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very
weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame
passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house.
Joel Kabakov , January 21, 2017 at 11:31 am
Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama
Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans
had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here
is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American
security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government.
D5-5 , January 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation
back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens
without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks).
Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once
again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind
and generous for this kind of behavior.
Mark Thomason , January 21, 2017 at 12:48 pm
Thank you. Good points well expressed. This has been buried by those who know better, as partisanship
has overtaken truth.
Trump bashing is an expression of the shock of 9:00 pm Election Night returns that were "impossible."
It is the political expression of Hillary's drunken ravings that night.
We see Stages of Grief in place of intelligence reports.
Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm
backwardsevolution, (Responding on Saturday). I thought you'd appreciate what Craig Murray
had to say about President Trump today and note the commentary because it's primarily European
Craig Murray's solid piece is very welcome!!
So glad that there are well informed and honest writers determined to reveal the difference between
our words and our actions as a country.
elmerfudzie , January 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm
Ray, the media propaganda that signaled another world war has now passed? I'd love to think
so FDR was quoted as saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool
all the people all the time" and IKE's, now famous or rather infamous (he did nothing to stop
the momentum) warning about the size and growth of our military industrial congressional complex.
Yet, politicians and citizen proles alike seem to dismiss these words of wisdom. Humanity continues
to be dragged towards an inevitable disaster.
Trump announced that he will INCREASE military spending while rebuilding our infrastructure?-already
he's BS-ing us.
The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate
quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research.
The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have
now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays
and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow.
It is here we will find the current societal Mission of George Orwell's, Ministry of Truth(s),
that is, all three branches of our federal government.
Information gatekeepers of the new Ministry of Propaganda have assumed the shape of, and taken
full control of, most of the Western Occident cable and newsprint media. These facts serve to
amplify my WW III fears and warnings. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: "The art of propaganda consists
precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings,
in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the
hearts of the national masses." This same oratory is the "new" yet at the same time, terribly
old, politic of the new POTUS.
Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups
within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
Notable quotes:
"... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
"... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relationsLeading scholar on US-Russia
relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political
spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in
Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University,
tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front
Cuban missile crisis."
This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false
drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under
the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join
it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know
if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner
with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department
of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.
In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different
vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say
the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover,
this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.
There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence
community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.
The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how
dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise,
and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger
lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't
exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation,
student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear
reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.
There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual
war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence.
There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where
you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.
Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof
been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public
discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.
It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That
wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security
issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement
with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto
member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if
not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.
The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation
in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?
"... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
"... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
"... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
"... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
"... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce.
A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy,
proclaiming its will to represent the people.
Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on
a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last
two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.
And of course there is the story that his
team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before
the Don dons a uniform?
I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find
amusing.
kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
What I told my own first-year students yesterday:
For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see
the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to
2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy.
Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of
America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.
I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking
office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary
wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin
supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want
a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?
Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing
countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.
We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a
president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.
He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business.
He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for
the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack
other countries.
We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time.
That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased
Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a
very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.
"... "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. ..."
In a new episode of his RT show "Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/373661-deep-state-trump-presidency/)
," host Lee Camp sits down with Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges (https://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges)
to discuss the "collapse of the mainstream media and the continued rise of [the] deep state."
The two examine recent headlines over alleged Russian hacks (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/experts_arent_convinced_by_fbi_and_homeland_security_20161230)
during the 2016 election. Hedges condemns the mainstream media for "hyperventilating" over the
alleged hacks, adding that the media fervor about Russia has "insidious" roots.
"It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that
America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize"
than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary
Clinton lost the presidential election.
Hedges notes that there are also economic factors at play. The "war machine," he says, needs to
"demonize Russia" because it "is earning billions of dollars in Eastern Europe with the expansion
of NATO."
Camp asks how Donald Trump, who presented himself as a political outsider, will handle these
economic and political forces when he becomes president. Hedges responds:
I'm not sure Trump has any fixed beliefs. And it's clear that the deep state-the security and
surveillance apparatus, the war machine-all sectors of the deep state, Democrat and Republican,
are going to put the screws on him to ratchet up or continue this aggressive posture towards
Russia. Partly because there are large sections of the U.S. economy, i.e., the defense industry,
for whom this is a huge profit-making venture.
The two also discuss how dissidents will be handled by the Trump administration and whether
American society has anything to hope for.
At the conclusion of the article, the Russian Scholar disavows any fondness
for Putin.
"By the way, I've never voted for Putin as a Russian, and I'm not a Putin
supporter."
For those of you playing the home game, this is now a required loyalty oath
for anyone opposed to nuclear war. More points are awarded for those willing to
categorically state that "Putin is a War Criminal" and "I want to punch Putin
in the face when I see him."
"... If we talk about recruitment techniques, we did not publicize the full statistics on that. But most recently, in the past few years, especially during the second term of Obama's administration, that unfriendly activity towards our diplomats has been growing in scale ..."
"... In addition to spying, US Embassy diplomats have repeatedly been seen taking part in the rallies of opposition, anti-government forces, unauthorized rallies, including times when they wore disguise. Do the math yourselves ..."
"... absolutely the opposite ..."
"... They [the US diplomats] go to Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Voronezh regions. They were seen repeatedly in Novorossiysk, in the Chechen Republic, along the border with Donbas [Eastern Ukraine], traveled literally up and down the country, ..."
"... We've curbed intelligence activities of US officials who were working under diplomatic cover. There was the famous episode when a disguised diplomat wearing a wig and false eyebrows penetrated the building of the US embassy, refusing to present identification to the security officer and hitting the officer," ..."
"... "All these have been traced, ..."
"... "agents of American security services. ..."
"... We contacted the US State Department at once, ..."
"... "When [Secretary] John Kerry learned about it, they were terrified. It was a frame-up of the State Department! ..."
"... time was lost" ..."
"... This information has not yet been made public ... It is not customary to do so, but if there is such an aggressive, unfriendly rhetoric from the outgoing US administration, of course, it would not be superfluous to remind the public that such incidents have occurred repeatedly – attempts to pressure our diplomats and attempts to recruit them for different reasons and in different situations," ..."
"... this indicates that Russian missions abroad really are under constant pressure, that there is constant work to gather intelligence [against us], and often conducted very aggressively. ..."
"... This shows quite a hostile line towards Russia. We regret that Washington resorted to such methods, and we hope that in our bilateral relations in the future we will still be able to establish a higher level of mutual trust and mutual respect," ..."
US intelligence agencies have been actively trying to recruit senior Russian diplomats over the
past several years, according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who also said that US diplomats
in Russia have engaged in espionage and took part in opposition rallies. " If we talk about recruitment
techniques, we did not publicize the full statistics on that. But most recently, in the past few
years, especially during the second term of Obama's administration, that unfriendly activity towards
our diplomats has been growing in scale ," Lavrov said at a news conference on Tuesday.
According to the minister, US diplomats have also engaged in espionage in Russia and actively
participated in the rallies staged by Russian opposition forces.
" In addition to spying, US Embassy diplomats have repeatedly been seen taking part in the
rallies of opposition, anti-government forces, unauthorized rallies, including times when they wore
disguise. Do the math yourselves ," Lavrov stated.
Lavrov dismissed allegations made by the Obama administration, which complained that the US Embassy
in Russia was forced to work under allegedly intolerable conditions, with the US Ambassador "
cut off " from all contacts, saying that evidence shows the situation was " absolutely the
opposite " – that the diplomats' movements were never restricted.
" They [the US diplomats] go to Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Voronezh regions. They were
seen repeatedly in Novorossiysk, in the Chechen Republic, along the border with Donbas [Eastern Ukraine],
traveled literally up and down the country, " he said.
Lavrov also said that the authorities have been able to thwart US diplomats trying to spy on Russia
on a number of occasions.
" We've curbed intelligence activities of US officials who were working under diplomatic cover.
There was the famous episode when a disguised diplomat wearing a wig and false eyebrows penetrated
the building of the US embassy, refusing to present identification to the security officer and hitting
the officer," Lavrov noted, while mentioning several other episodes involving US diplomats wearing
disguises, including some when men dressed as women.
"All these have been traced, " the minister stressed.
To illustrate the damage that can be caused by the spy-wars being waged by the US intelligence
community, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova revealed a scandal that took place
in 2015 which may have been among the causes of death of legendary Russian statesman Evgeny Primakov.
In an interview with Rossiya 1 TV on Sunday, Zakharova described an alleged attempt by US intelligence
services to recruit a Russian diplomat that resulted in a delay in the delivery of a rare American
medicine needed for Primakov's treatment.
According to Zakharova, as a favor to its former chief, the Russian Foreign Ministry organized
the purchase of the drug through a practicing US doctor. An embassy employee was supposed to pick
up the package and deliver it to Moscow through diplomatic channels. However, he was stopped by people
whom Zakharova described as "agents of American security services. " The diplomat was detained,
and then eventually let go, but the drug was confiscated. When the unnamed intelligence agency didn't
even repay the cost of the drug, which was about $10,000, the Foreign Ministry decided to complain
to US authorities.
" We contacted the US State Department at once, " Zakharova said. "When [Secretary]
John Kerry learned about it, they were terrified. It was a frame-up of the State Department!
"
Zakharova said that, although Primakov lived for some time following the incident, precious "
time was lost" due to the gaffe.
The spokeswoman said the story shows the disarray in the Obama administration, while noting that
she believes the American security services have been deliberately trying to undermine all diplomatic
ties between the US and Russia.
According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, the unfriendly rhetoric of the outgoing US authorities
is to blame for Tuesday's disclosure of US pressure techniques on Russian diplomats.
" This information has not yet been made public ... It is not customary to do so, but if there
is such an aggressive, unfriendly rhetoric from the outgoing US administration, of course, it would
not be superfluous to remind the public that such incidents have occurred repeatedly – attempts to
pressure our diplomats and attempts to recruit them for different reasons and in different situations,"
Peskov told the press.
He added that " this indicates that Russian missions abroad really are under constant pressure,
that there is constant work to gather intelligence [against us], and often conducted very aggressively.
" This shows quite a hostile line towards Russia. We regret that Washington resorted to such
methods, and we hope that in our bilateral relations in the future we will still be able to establish
a higher level of mutual trust and mutual respect," Peskov stated.
After the fall of the Soviet Union all kinds of their military hardware went
"missing" - "Lord of War" (a great movie) showed the sleazier side of the
international arms trade.
What Russia's crime consisted of, by the most damaging interpretation, was hacking into a private
server belonging to a political party and possibly allowing the admittedly factual but embarrassing
material obtained to make its way into the media. Excuse me, but that is what intelligence agencies
do routinely to justify their multiple billion dollar budgets. The United States is the world leader
in such activity as revealed by Jim Bamford's
books
on the subject and also through the revelations obtained in the Snowden papers. Now Russia
is being condemned for possibly doing some of the same, though no evidence is being provided, and
the story is being framed as if we are by definition the good guys and Vladimir Putin is the devil
incarnate.
What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of
fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black
people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the
eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed
about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both
in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.
"... The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied
upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to
the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield
its specific source from the analysts in the INR. ..."
"... If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the
very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited
to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable
with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very
agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily
basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially
that of its leader, Vladimir Putin. ..."
Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain Scott Ritter, Huffington Post (Fiver). Important.
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these
espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are
designed to influence our election." This statement was false when it was made by Hillary Clinton,
on October 9, 2016, referring to the aforementioned October 7 joint statement by DHS and the ODNI;
as was the case for the Russian ICA, the joint statement drew upon only three of the 16 agencies
(the 17th is the ODNI, which is a coordinating body, not a separate intelligence agency), the
only intelligence agencies involved in crafting the underlying assessments and judgments were
the FBI, CIA and NSA.
When one dissects the nuts and bolts that hold the Russian ICA together, the framework is actually
quite weak. The FBI, the sole agency responsible for intelligence derived from a domestic source
(i.e., the DNC server and John Podesta) has acknowledged that it has had no direct access to the
servers involved, and was compelled to carry out its investigation based upon the technical report
of a private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, brought in by the DNC in April 2016***.
..
It was interesting to note that DNI Clapper told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in
open session on January 10, 2016, that the State Department, in particular its Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR) was excluded from participating in the preparation of the classified ICA because
of "sensitivity of sources." This seems to be a unique circumstance, as the Senator who asked
the question noted; INR analysts possess the highest level of security clearances that grant them
access to a broad range of highly classified sources of intelligence.
The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information
relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and
central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary
to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR.
This exclusion, however, would cut across the entire intelligence community, given the "need
to know" caveats attached to most, if not all, sensitive information of this nature. If this was,
indeed, the standard applied, then it would also exclude from participation in preparation of
the ICA many of the CIA's own analysts, and most, if not all, of the academics recruited to fill
positions within the National Intelligence Council, the arm of the ODNI responsible for overseeing
the production of multi-agency assessments like the ICA on Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential
election.
If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated
the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he
proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community
was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in
modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad
spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues
such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin.
==================================================================
It may seem like a small lie, 3 bureaucracies instead of 17, but it is is an innate characteristic
of these institutions and individuals. They spread a lot of disinformation. And than of course,
the lying by omission.
Its a complete and thorough "assessment" .except for the fact that all those cynics, skeptics,
and anyone with the expertise to refute the dubious assumptions and obvious biases of the CIA
were excluded.
So, the CIA says "WE ALL AGREE" – does anyone know of a MSM that has pointed out that the "intelligence
report" is a consensus ONLY because anybody who disagreed was left off???
One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring
the DNC's email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.
The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted
the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two
files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff - an average
of about several dozen on any given day.
The computers contained research going back years on TRUMP. "It's a huge job" to dig into the
dealings of somebody who has never run for office before, Dacey said.
CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC
employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate - often
made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted - but that contain links or attachments
that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer.
"But WE DON'T HAVE HARD EVIDENCE," Alperovitch said.
===================================
Soooo .the DNC is mad that Russia got all their Trump Opo dirt for free?
Ritter's piece is unfortunately too detailed and informative–too accurate, in a word–for the
vast majority of the screen-reading populace, the credentialed among whom are much dumber and
less cultured than their working-class forebears. It's much less taxing to read Jeff Bezos's Blog
while ordering your no-whip vanilla latte than trying to work through the far-reaching implications
of Ritter's analysis.
Poor Ritter – doomed to be this era's Cassandra. Or maybe poor us (poor "US" as in USA) – doomed
to ignore the truthful and listen to the liars ..
and the population all composed of Hamilton Burgers*
*Hamilton Burger was the rather obtuse District Attorney who charged the clients of Perry Mason
with crimes, when week after ween, month after month, year after year the clients would be exonerated***
Most people would have long ago figured out not to charge people Perry Mason was defending, but
this DA never learned .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(TV_series)
***When asked by a fan why Perry Mason won every case, Burr told her, "But madam, you see only
the cases I try on Saturday."[61]:590
Mason is known to have lost, in some form or manner, three cases-"The Case of the Terrified Typist",
"The Case of the Witless Witness", and "The Case of the Deadly Verdict".[72]
Why read Ritter . when you can just 'turn on' to Mara liasson ,or lachml Singh, or any of the
assorted stenographic heathers on N P R ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't see Scott tossing out tote bags to the rabble
These failures are furthered when one incorporates the shortcomings of American intelligence
analysis behind the failure to accurately predict the Russian actions against Georgia in 2008,
the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in 2015 – in short, the
track record of the very intelligence community that produced the ICA addressing allegations
of a Russian influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential election is not impressive.
I took that to mean that the IC was too stupid to figure out that Russia would not just sit
back and do nothing while the US interfered in their sphere of influence, not necessarily that
Russia was the instigator.
Why hasn't anybody demanded to see CrowdStrike's pedigree beyond its vague vetting (?) by the
DNC? A private company that has remained anonymous except for its name – well that makes no sense.
Or rather, it makes the DNC look even worse.
Not to mention that one thing that no one seems to be disputing is that DNC cyber security
was terrible to non-existent, so their judgment in this area can be considered weak at best.
That would be the function of a "principled press," the position of which can be summarized
as "Trump and Putin sittin' in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G."
Still, I can't help but wonder if the "principled" press and the "intelligence" community have
not painted themselves into a corner. With Trump and Putin portrayed as locked in a loving embrace
and isis seemingly dropped off the face of the earth, should Trump meet with a tragic "accident,"
whom will the public blame?
Because Alperovitch is also on the Atlantic Council(neocons-NATO) and also has very close ties
to Ukraine Nationals? Reaching across the aisle and bi-partisian support, methinks.
"spearphishing" – See Podesta dump for screenshots of phishing site asking for Podesta to enter
his id and password.
The so called "unique" Russian exploit techniques are old, and can be done by many other reasonably
competent hackers.
Surprising to me is that no one yet has mentioned that a real state hacker would hide her IP
behind probably multiple large VPN networks. There might be some way of setting up "spoof servers"
too, but I'm nowhere competent enough in this subject to say anything with much certainty. Other
than CrowdStrike is full of crap.
If I'm not getting e-mails urging me to update some password or the other, I'm getting tales
of woe regarding package delivery or something going wrong with an account of a bank I've never
used.
Do I respond? Nope. Do I click on the links or open the attachments in these e-mails? Uh-uh.
So, am I now in the running for a position at the DNC?
Errors have been made by the Intelligence Community in the past and, given the punishing
reality of a fair and open society, and the scrutiny of a free press contained within, these failures
have been exposed – sometimes ruthlessly so – for all the world to see. From the reversal of the
Intelligence Community's stance on the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program,
underestimating the scope and reach of the threat of the Islamic State, and the exaggeration of
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates
conducted by the IC over the past two decades – the period spanning the careers of those who continue
to provide the analysis that underpinned these highlighted erroneous conclusions and findings
– the public history of the failures of the judgment of the American intelligence community is
extensive and uncomplimentary.
This represents massive overhead that can't even be ditched as sunk costs. Keeping this "intelligence"
enterprise going is embedded in the government's budget, and the results of these massive errors
have caused thousands of untold lives to be destroyed, even the ones still alive, and wasted trillions
of dollars, which is ongoing. Meanwhile the rest of the country crumbles.
"You're fired", directed at upper management of the "intelligence" community can't come fast
enough from President Trump's mouth.
"the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the
past two decades"
This article comes awfully close to equating "assessment" with "wild ass guess" but doesn't
quite go that far. (probably deemed unprofessional)
The misplaced dedication shown by our IC goes further back ..probably even further back than when
the FBI spent two years studying the lyrics of "Louie, Louie"
Thinking back, the Democrats and Beltway insiders were still believing their computers' predictions
of a Hillary at the time the "Russians are coming" mantra began.
Something tells me this was expected to be the pretext for a Clinton administration led conflict
with Russia they just didn't want to let Trump winning stop their plans.
So it's coming off very clumsily. Lots lost in the improvisation.
Campaign internals. The appearance schedule, reports of polls asking about opinions of Michelle,
and Obama hitting the campaign trail when he would ideally like to make a grand gesture such as
fraudulent peace talks was a sign the campaign was in trouble.
There is a good chance the vaunted "data" people noticed the Republicans they expected to win
weren't abandoning Trump and registration efforts over the Summer didn't pan out due to lack of
effort.
Russia is the new Nader, war President, and how Bush out spent Kerry on ads excuses from previous
campaigns to excuse the same old Clinton ideas and people leading to the usual disaster. I believe
the Green Party moved to recount mode so swiftly to blunt being turned into the villain.
To ruin your Sunday morning, listen (if you have the stomach) to Council on Foreign Relations
head Richard Haas
on the Tavis Smiley show . Doubling down on the Washington consensus, and clearly trying to
talk up
an intervention in Venezuela. Because R2P can not fail – it can only be failed.
The Russian Dossier Reminds Me of the Row Over Saddam's WMDs Counterpunch
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry
and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,
[said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential
candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least FIVE YEARS."
==========================================================
Dang those guys are prescience .I wanna ask them what stocks to buy (Hot Octopuss? are masturbatoriums
the coming thing???), or better yet, what lottery numbers to pick ..
Those Euro-Asians are patience and they think long term.
In the 1963 movie, Bye Bye Birdie, Dick Van Dyke played Al Peterson, whose song, The Last Kiss,
to by sung by the just-drafted Conrad (or was it Comrade) Birdie, on the Ed Sullivan Show, was
going to make him rich enough to take care of his mother and marry his girl friend. The plan was
spoiled by those scheming Russian ballet dancers whose number was going to run too long that Ed
Sullivan had to eliminate the song. So, the attack on American freedom went way, way back.
Moreover, Van Dyke, being a Ph.D. in biochemistry, had invented a pill to 'speed up' animals
and humans as well. The girl friend, posing as a photo-journalist, was able to slip a speed-up
pill into the conductor Borov's milk, in order to 'speed up' their show, and restore Birde's lost
minutes. While this successful patriotic plan was unfolding, you can see a mad Russkie official
clutching a shoe, as if he was ready to hit something with it.
That, there, was the subliminal message to all future shoe-throwers who are now plaguing our
world these days.
And, comrades, that's long-range planning five years is nothing.
Initially, the devious rooskies were grooming Trump to take down Vince McMahon and totally
flatten the Rosie Threat. When they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams is when things went
to their heads and they got too big for their britches.
Now they're coming after our super stars. Those rooskies need to be taken down a notch or two.
Although I was aware of Schumer's recent comment to Maddow ("You take on the intelligence community?
They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you") I did not get around to watching the exchange
until today.
What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment
politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted
fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act
however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has
been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their
constituents.
I for one am grateful that Trump has enough spine to stand firm wrt putting these agencies
back in their place (especially the
CIA ), which is, after all, to serve and protect the citizens of the US.
"their careers" – or given not-so-recent-yet-not-so-ancient USian history – indeed even their
lives could/ would be at risk
the schumer-maddow exchange can certainly be –chillingly– interpreted in a number of ways.
The blob is all powerful ?? or people like Schumer are afraid of their own shadow sadly methinx
it is the later The blob is able to function since characters sit in the seats of power instead
of real men ( & not enough women).
In much like how the mafia slowly brings someone to the dark side by having them do small indiscretions
and crimes over a period of time until the victim becomes the victimizer, the blob will attempt
to reel one in by burping out national security or just dumping natsec "non disclosures" or luring
in someone close to you or finding someone close to you who they already have in their pockets
If one resists too much, then the existing wimps in charge make sure you get stuck in some
subcommittees handling bipartisan egg rolls on the whitehouse lawn
Get along or get along now(scoot)
It is getting near the end of the movie and toto has pulled back the curtain .
I guess this means Chucky won't be calling any .. uh .. 'plumbing contractors' .. to his house
anytime soon, unless they're members of Conniving .. Instigators .. Associates --
Schumer is no lightweight, if he says/believes this then we have a whole lot to be worried
about. Thank goodness for Trump.
(For the record, I voted McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama)
Schumer has never been accused of being overly intelligent. He is still miffed because HRC
went down in flames. She was supposed to be his partner in crime for eight years.
And he was supposed to be Senate Majority Leader and get a really cool office instead of the
crummy basement one. Given the seats up for reelection in 2018, he will have to wait until January
2021.
When I watched that exchange the other evening in real time, it seemed ominous to me, very
dark. I think he was trying to instill real fear into the heart of Trump. I wonder if someone
like a Trump has ever felt fear. It makes you wonder. Or if Trump has ever dealt with anyone more
powerful than he believes himself to be.
What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment
politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted
fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act
however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it
has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve
their constituents
Well hasn't this been pretty much the case since the incident in Dallas 50 plus years ago?
I'm somewhat surprised Booker did not pull a Nancy Pelosi type vote on this bill.
From what I remember, on the TPP Fast Track, Pelosi worked behind the scenes to get Fast Track
through, and then, with enough votes to assure it would pass without her vote, voted against the
very action she had promoted.
Of course, Pelosi's constituents were opposed to the TPP and she "supported" them.
Booker could have quietly, privately, assured his big Pharma funders he was in the tank for
them while still voting in support of the drug importation bill, because if his vote had moved
to the supporting side, the count would have been 47-51 and the bill would still fall the way
the big Pharma wanted.
Maybe other senators in the 46 "supporters" were playing the cynical Pelosi optics type of
game and Booker had to fall on his sword to show both his loyalty to big Pharma and give them
cover?
Possibly Booker also priced in that there are about 4 years before the next presidential election
and this vote could fall into the dustbin of history.
Dems have gotten away with a lot, hiding behind Obama or Hillary and using the rotating villain
strategy, and now they don't have a leader to protect them. Booker doesn't have the cult of personality
Obama had, and there won't be an echo chamber to shut down dissent. I don't believe Democrats
have a handle on their status.
No it was Russia's fault. Now we must circle the wagons and destroy Russia. Ya better be with
me cause we are soon going to war to protect democracy and if you ain't with me you are a ( fill
in the blank). The Democratic party does not make mistakes. The rag tag voters make mistakes!
Now send us some money so we can stop Trump!
Will this b******t ever end. It is driving me nuts.
Me too MaH. The imitation democracy that is the USA is just a pathetic sideshow and brutally
overpriced.
The only interesting aspect right now is how Trump responds to the unintelligence community
for their transparent insubordination and abuse of power. Time will tell.
Dems have had the delusional idea since they caught the car bumper and had both Houses of Congress
and the Presidency that just one of those is good, and preferably the Presidency. Hence their
lack of panic as they lost the House, the Senate and most of the state legislatures and Governorships
in the nation.
Having now lost the one thing they were determined to win, they are going to slowly find out
that there is no place to hide when their constituents are going to expect them to use all the
same levers the Republicans did to obstruct all that stuff Obama wanted to do. They can't do the
rotating villain thing, they can't NOT block things AND when that doesn't work the myth that Obama
was hamstrung by Republicans is going to fall apart. Oops.
Mind you the Republicans are going to have the problem of needing to pass the things they promised
and living with those consequences.
It is going to be interesting. And terrifying especially with the IC and MIC having tantrums
that would do two year olds proud.
One fear of the Democrats might be they could be now be viewed as a useless appendage to the
political process and unworthy of financial support by TPTB.
That could hit them hard as Democratic think tanks lose funding and the NPV of the future lobbying
potential of a current Democratic politician drops off dramatically.
The Dems might actually feel a personal recession as they lose the ability to place their friends
and relatives in well-paid politically related jobs.
TPTB can simply support a handful of Blue-dog Democrats to buy a voting cushion on legislation
that matters to them.
Why pay more than necessary for Democratic support when it is largely irrelevant?
And the Dem reaction, of course, will be to suck up even harder to their money masters they've
already concluded from the election that they weren't far enough to the right, this should mesh
quite nicely. We've had one party in the country for decades, Obama's populist words (while pushing
neo-con corporo-fascist actions) bamboozled for two terms, now we will get absolute unity in pushing
the 1% agenda. Then we can do 1776 redux and take back our country.
People really are loathe to admit that Obama has been an utter freakin' disaster. I was telling
someone about how close the ALEC owned state houses were to getting their Constitutional convention
and blamed Obama. I was lectured about how he came into a mess and that he was obviously not the
problem it was people like Wasserman Schultz. I had to explain about the President and the DNC
and that both Kaine and DWS were Obama's hand picked heads, that he moved grass roots organizing
to OFA AND that over the course of his leadership of the party they had gone from having the Presidency,
the House, the Senate, a majority of Governorships and an almost equal number of state legislative
houses to exactly the opposite. Suffice it to say I left them speechless.
And none of that should have been all that revelatory to a supposed political junkie. But to
recognize that he wasn't interested in Democrats winning who were not named Obama is to understand
he didn't care that he would not be in a position to get anything Democratic voters want
In one sense, Obama's failure was not in our stars but in ourselves, not me personally. If
the Obots who cared so much for Obama and politics had torn themselves away from the latest insipid
episode of X and called their Congressman or Senator instead of "liking" a cool meme about Obama,
he might have been under enough pressure to not be completely terrible. Obama's evolution on gay
rights only came after public outrage.
The Obama followers have to understand this and simply don't want to admit their own complicity
preferring to blame their plumber who may or may not have voted.
Example 1: Krugthullu's recent craziness.
Example 2: Greta Van Susteren and noted racist, Megan Kelly both scored gigs at NBC. Were no Dems
available? Or at least someone who didn't have a meltdown over a black Santa?
Example 3: the CGI shutting down despite all the good they do (snark)
Well that may be their strategy going ahead, but if you looked at the last couple of elections,
they just were not interested in winning elections. Money was thrown at people who didn't really
need it, token amounts to others. People were chosen to run who had lost in the past, or the usual
suspects owed. There was little or no recruitment, the former Republicans they supported pretty
much fell in their laps.
No they are going to have to seriously attempt to win even on a limited manner, and I don't think
they have clue how anymore.
Who knows .. Maybe the Donald with bring about a presidential decree, thereby forcing our reps
& senators to don 'advertizing' as per Nascar race cars --
Then it would be apparent to all as to whose loyalties they actually cater to .
Flake's on the ballot in November, and McCain does do his rotating hero strategy, he's on the
side of good when it doesn't matter. He does have a huge senior population who like that desert
air.
There are two Senators scheduled to be at this event: Booker and Menendez, and they both voted
against the Klobuchar/Sanders amendment to allow Americans to buy medicine from Canada! Clearly
this event was scheduled before the vote occurred. I wonder what kinds of discussions about this
have been occurring behind the scenes?
Did you know that there is a Senate Ukraine Caucus? News to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Ukraine_Caucus
The Senate Ukraine Caucus is a bipartisan caucus of the United States Senate that was Ron Johnson
(R-WI); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Mark Kirk (R-IL); James Inhofe (R-OK); Chris Murphy (D-CT). Gary
Peters (D-MI); Rob Portman (R-OH)
It's OK when Ukraine manipulates US politics. The US has always found nazis to be useful in
its anti-Russian efforts, from Reinhard Behlen to Wernher von Braun, with a few Ukie Banderites
thrown in for the truly dirty work.
DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national
security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the
treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are
essentially charlatans.
Notable quotes:
"... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
"... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
"... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
"... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
"... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
"... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
"... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
"... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
"... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
"... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
"... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
"... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
"... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have
deepened the New Cold War
In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with
the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria
by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.
DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity
Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story
they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.
Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking
of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.
The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical
infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage
of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.
The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power
infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack
against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major
functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.
Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for
electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications
for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical
impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."
That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national
infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran
by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.
Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with
the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald
Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across
the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate
and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that
it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been
used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well.
However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who
had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US
infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.
"Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We
ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."
Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian
hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed
could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.
The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report
as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows
bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications
private.
Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent,
but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the
report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report
"for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."
Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive
Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately
ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one
of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the
utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.
In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail
server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion.
That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before
reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had
thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.
"DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their
mouth shut."
Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators
of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post
failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking
with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story
under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont,
US officials say."
DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the
grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code
to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity
in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."
The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected
to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid
had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of
a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.
The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so
explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic
Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software
found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.
As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore
not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington
utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected
by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."
Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending
its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The
DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is
encouraging people to run indicators.'"
Original DHS False Hacking Story
The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking
of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion"
into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.
Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure
systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer
was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of
these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify
when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.
On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield,
Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in
to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually
from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who
was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.
Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown
of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois
Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State
Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.
On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report
titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity
of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water
pump to fail.
The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine
that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in
putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining
that it must have been a Russian hack.
The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research,
was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a
reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure
on Nov. 18, 2011.
After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was
the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation
revealed in
a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued
any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.
DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't
intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't
have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what
it's supposed to do – generate interest."
Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game
of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political
stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they
will exploit it.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security
policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war
in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected].
"... By exposing their corruption and incompetence, Trump has raised the stakes, which were already cosmic. The US Intelligence Community, a hermetic and self-governing authority in its own right, has decades of expertise in fomenting revolution, engineering regime change, and assassinating its opposition. They have taken down foreign leaders with some regularity. It is likely that they have done the same in our own country. ..."
"... They see Putin's Russia as an existential threat to their interests, not because of his imagined persecution of "journalists" (who are really just enemy combatants and subversives in the employ of the occult world order). Not because of his natural territorial ambitions in Russia's traditional sphere of influence. Not because of "Muhleppo." And certainly not because of his alleged "hacking" of the DNC. Putin is an existential threat because he is living proof that the world could be ordered in a different way. He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare described as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief psychological weapon of progressives and globalists. ..."
"... Obama's owners are trying to lay as many landmines in front of Trump as possible. ..."
"... I think the "myth of inevitability" is a key component for Progressives. Take this away, and see that other choices are available, and soon enough people will realize that they do not like the Progressive choice at all. ..."
"... Removal of the neocons comes next, part of which will be getting rid of the idea that a preemptive nuclear first srtike is a viable option and reverting to a "no first strike" policy. That will already make the world a much safer place. NATO and nuclear reductions can all come later. ..."
"... Putin will dig in his heels but won't budge to retaliate at any provocation. He knows there's a lot at stake for Russia as well as the world at large. And he can stand on his head for 5 days, if necessary, until the Big O is firmly out. Mr. Obama has now finally sealed his legacy as a warmonger. ..."
"... In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - one of the nine organizational units that make up the Unified Combatant Command - had special operations forces (SOFs) in 134 countries , where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and training foreign forces. Russia? Aggressive? Read a book ..."
"... For many years now I've felt that the "President" is merely a face for the sheep to identify with. ..."
"... The sheep don't/can't understand that it's the MIC, big pharma, big oil, too big to fail banks, lobbyists that call the shots. Money rules. ..."
"... One last move on the chess board before he leaves. Hoping to force his replacement into carrying on the theme by limiting his gameplay going forward. ..."
Lame duck presidents are not supposed to make risky moves like this once a new president has been
elected. On Thursday, we learned that U.S. troops have been permanently deployed to Poland
for the very first time
American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since
the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia.
Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed
into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based.
Poland's prime minister and defense minister will welcome them in an official ceremony Saturday.
Poland was once a key member of the Warsaw Pact alliance, and the Russians are quite alarmed that
U.S. troops will now be stationed so close to the Russian heartland. The following comes from
ABC News
I don't know whether Trump's #GoldenShowerGate presser was the "moneychanger moment" or not,
but it had the feel of a major escalation in the contest. Certainly, his enemies believed that
this was a potential decapitation stroke. That it failed-as all of their previous efforts have
failed-will only serve to strengthen their resolve.
By exposing their corruption and incompetence,
Trump has raised the stakes, which were already cosmic. The US Intelligence Community, a hermetic
and self-governing authority in its own right, has decades of expertise in fomenting revolution,
engineering regime change, and assassinating its opposition. They have taken down foreign leaders
with some regularity. It is likely that they have done the same in our own country.
They see Putin's Russia as an existential threat to their interests, not because of his imagined
persecution of "journalists" (who are really just enemy combatants and subversives in the employ
of the occult world order). Not because of his natural territorial ambitions in Russia's traditional
sphere of influence. Not because of "Muhleppo." And certainly not because of his alleged "hacking"
of the DNC. Putin is an existential threat because he is living proof that the world could be
ordered in a different way. He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and
Psychological Warfare described as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief
psychological weapon of progressives and globalists.
'Pussygate' was an illegal broadcast of a private conversation, carried out to manipulate the
election. It's still having an effect. Where are no charges being filed? (yet)
That's what presidents have been for a very long time.
Russia stands as the "principal threat" to the United States's security
. He said this is because of its actions and efforts to "intimidate" other countries.
He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare described
as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief psychological weapon of progressives
and globalists.
I think the "myth of inevitability" is a key component for Progressives. Take this away, and
see that other choices are available, and soon enough people will realize that they do not like
the Progressive choice at all.
Right now, we are literally living from day to day only 10 minutes away from the complete nuclear
obliteration of Western "civilization". And mistakes can happen. Trump's first order of business
with Putin should be to get the alert levels pushed back down to lower levels so as to allow consultation
and dialogue before anyone gets an itchy trigger finger.
Removal of the neocons comes next, part
of which will be getting rid of the idea that a preemptive nuclear first srtike is a viable option
and reverting to a "no first strike" policy. That will already make the world a much safer place.
NATO and nuclear reductions can all come later.
Putin will dig in his heels but won't budge to retaliate at any provocation. He knows there's a lot at stake for Russia as well as the world at large. And he can stand on his head for 5 days, if necessary, until the Big O is firmly out. Mr. Obama has now finally sealed his legacy as a warmonger.
I suspect that the Pentagon thought it would be best to demonstrate a show of force and solidarity
with NATO members during the transition of power. This is to deter Russia from considering any aggressive moves during this time of relative
weakness.
In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - one of the nine organizational units
that make up the Unified Combatant Command - had special operations forces (SOFs) in
134 countries , where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and
training foreign forces. Russia? Aggressive? Read a book
DirtySanchez •Jan 15, 2017 8:05 PM
1)The Polish are not stupid. They really don't want to start WWIII on their front yard.
2)The Russians are not going to get outsmarted by anyfuckingbody in the current obama
administration.
3)POTUS Trump needs to put his boot down on the neocon/neoliberal/nato/un/globalists bankster/mic/establishment
maniacs that want more war, up to and including WWIII.
4)No One takes bozo,his cia apparatchik,brennan, or his state department seriously.
5)Five more days, and the long national nightmare of clintonbushobama is over.
Shed Boy -> DarkPurpleHaze •Jan 15, 2017 9:52 PM
I agree. In fact, I believe Obama was never in charge. For many years now I've felt
that the "President" is merely a face for the sheep to identify with.
The sheep don't/can't understand that it's the MIC, big pharma, big oil, too big to
fail banks, lobbyists that call the shots. Money rules.
The "president" is just an empty suit placed before the people to give them something easy to
identify with.
techpriest -> Shed Boy •Jan 15, 2017 10:36 PM
I remember learning about lobbying years ago, and got to interview a Congressman about the
legislating process.
The gem that's relevant to this thread, is that he admitted freely that it's not possible for
Congressmen to know enough about every area you are legislating on. Einstein couldn't know
enough - you know have to know everything about everything.
So, industry-supplied (read: lobbyist-supplied) "experts" teach them what they need to know.
StreetObserver •Jan 15, 2017 9:57 PM
Thanks for wasting billions of dollars, mr. presidunce. You are a mediocrity. A shill and a
sham serving various masters while you fool some of the people with your well earned skin
color. I can't believe I worked my ass off for you in your first campaign against McCaine.
I hope that human life can suvive your clumsy attemps at doing something big while trying to
hand an Obama Sandwich to President Elect Trump.
JPMorgan •Jan 16, 2017 12:09 AM
One last move on the chess board before he leaves. Hoping to force his
replacement into carrying on the theme by limiting his gameplay going forward.
Vijay Prashad, that is an Apples-Oranges comparison with no validity, not to mention sans geopolitical
reality and treaty obligations to USA Allies in Europe.
Actually 4000 troop is a fraction of a brigade. It is what some call a tripwire, in case of
war a forlorn hope! When that forlorn hope is snuffed the nukes come out!
You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization
on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning
to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.
a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America,
and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.
Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good
at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.
"... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
"... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
"... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
"... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
"... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
"... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
"... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
"... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
"... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
"... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
"... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
"... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
"... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
"... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
"... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
"... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
"... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
"... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
"... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
"... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
"... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
"... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
"... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
"... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
"... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
"... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
"... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
"... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives
claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of
the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference
in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past
work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing
exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according
to two national security officials.
When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly,
there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just
a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even
legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example,
such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability
of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true
document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from
sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.
The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV,
directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security
services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence
" exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him
."
Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English
it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior
one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques.
The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after
"source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence
agencies classify their sources.
I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what
they are talking about.
This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.
First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political
and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup
d'etat.
Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian
techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians,
they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would
make Trump a traitor, by the way.
Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House".
We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed
has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed
News is publishing the
full document so
that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels
of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!
Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump,
it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a
legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible"
even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record
his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting
their behavior before him.
Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and
disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting
this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC
and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full
state of war against Donald Trump.
All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House
(I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly
crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared
war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.
[Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do
that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating
them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which
have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin
did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags
or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to
hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House
or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated
all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage.
Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose
best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him
to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.
As
I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily
dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump,
the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress
impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas).
At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in
danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as
a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the
Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat
against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their
values and their country.
In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they
are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy.
And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often
care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump
and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection,
we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is
the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police,
security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a
Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.
I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up
and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean
that they are not after you ".
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump)
recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country,
a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very
clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic,
and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.
His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media,
Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing
the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.
I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very
violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is
at the stake.
Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and
the nationalisation of everything.
Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky
tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.
After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has
support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must
separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much
safer World.
This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness
make it almost a possibility.
Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.
One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven
no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those
are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer.
Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll
..ForeverWar!
Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated -
one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the
common interest.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post
represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the
Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once,
it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really
what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold
on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting
women around, and acting like some rapper thug?
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.
BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't
British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?
Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans
have been spilled.
PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.
Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out
early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot
of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro
myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents
suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.
What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan
opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.
It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished
truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.
However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers
That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal
error to underestimate them.
Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what
it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on
the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.
Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump
Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged
drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern
accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about
whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction
we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my
uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.
I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a
lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name
is pretty WASP-y.
But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never
did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just
one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."
I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is
for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen.
The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.
All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that.
That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.
The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in
which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and
if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.
There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the
case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in
which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.
It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear
since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural
affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing
Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.
So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.
You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives
Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.
Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected,
guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally
out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal
economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate
identity.
Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive,
since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses
then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while
still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives
replaced.
Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US
in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power
in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges
of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.
Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA
and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation
in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests
of the United States.
Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as
America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.
"Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly
in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"
"Exploited" Miro23 ?
This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..
Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of
handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would
have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers
pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......
14,300,000 people.!
That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.
This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".
Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...
A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --
This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.
Its absolutely "mind -numbing"
Its obscene.
And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....
BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".
This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.
Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.
This cannot continue.
The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.
And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down
on this....and they ain't gonna budge --
Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --
I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them
may finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.
Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation.
Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about
it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't
have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).
"this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such
case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
"And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities,
who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"
One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand
against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program.
But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon
squad may be in error.
I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still
completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert
British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.
The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act
was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with
very aggressive racial grievance agitation.
The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match
It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump
is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about
them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.
Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and
credibility to this threadbare effort.
The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest
form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.
Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.
On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper
(mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness
during depressive phases.
The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written
by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but
they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.
The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted
it as true.
Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.
Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.
Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen
somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.
That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic
party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?
McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims
and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem
to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former
MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.
Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged
on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence'
agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying
It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
.
Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.
They are cleary sn.
If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
. . .
I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis
. It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows
how to make a mess of things but not much else.
I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent
people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.
"...incompetent CIA.."
Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent
professionals.
Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
"I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its
founding and note this has always been the case."
Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle
for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep
state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did
9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take
a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the
white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!
Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party
Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world
behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that
operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their
political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?
"this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case
- why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly
manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get
burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind
The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future
press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply
not very bright.
There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't
serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation
you kind of have to.
The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag
attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.
No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve
some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.
Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?
Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they
did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes
and take a train outa town.
If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.
War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of
the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.
That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home,
and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.
I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of
us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.
I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.
I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may
finish their lives in prison.
Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination,
what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.
The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too
obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.
What a completely naive, completely pseudoscientific nonsense. The guy is completely clueless about
driving forces of rumors.: it is the distrust to the official channels that drives them
Notable quotes:
"... Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news. ..."
"... "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic
element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say
the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.
..."
"... What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it?
Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source
of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected? ..."
"... Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive. ..."
"... I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley.
It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors? ..."
"... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence
community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's
eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess
such evidence. ..."
"... For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of
world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by
NSA. ..."
"... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect
to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why
U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner
sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures
were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
"... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false
testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception
was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the
press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
"... "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on
me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS? ..."
"... Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90%
of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't
they think they could get away with it? ..."
"... Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now
are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels. Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the
social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top. And actually the same forces that
facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too
compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth. libezkova ->
libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective
problem-solving in ambiguous situations. His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966)
had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487
It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic. You might be surprised
by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost
trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But
they are barking to the wrong tree. ilsm -> libezkova... Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the
US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners
in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The
other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely
'news' it is indoctrination. ..."
"... The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated
than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine
was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the
CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations. ..."
"... Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is
(should be) illegal. ..."
"... "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are
adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because
they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix. ..."
"... Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its
own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse
by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers
with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. ..."
"... This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features
with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit. ..."
"... The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The
Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical
aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were
still very important to people themselves in their lives. ..."
"... These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety.
Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but
for Russians they were the most important. ..."
"... Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either
blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active
resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality,
education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. ..."
"... his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They
pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them." ..."
"... People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating
relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the
context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively
subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29) ..."
"... The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist
incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards),
Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which
in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning. ..."
"... All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism"
thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually
able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative
discourse. ..."
"... "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives
of a just peace." ..."
"... Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury
and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back. ..."
"... Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be,
the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term
harm to society than most people realize. ..."
"... Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot!
Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and
his subsequent behavior. ..."
I see that
Paul Krugman is talking abou t the consequences of Fake News so I will enter this market and
supply some thoughts. I will define fake news as stories that are "juicy" but not true.
Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news.
... ... ...
There are four cases to consider.
Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the
National Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.
Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story
is true.
Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is true.
Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is false.
"Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic
element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say
the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.
I believe that Dr. K is mainly concerned with Case #2. What % of all suspect stories fall into
this category? Dr. K has a cynical model in mind in which sophisticated agents (think of Trump and
Putin) manipulate the gullible public with messages and then the Facebook and Internet accelerate
this information throughout the system as it infects billions and influences real events.
Case #2 raises some deep issues, I will state them as questions;
1. What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read
it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the
source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected?
2. In public health, we quarantine those who may spread contagion. Is Dr. K. calling for a messaging
quarantine of the "susceptible people" or is he proposing ending free speech for those who spread
the contagion?
3. If there is objective reality, do those who are susceptible to "fake news" update their beliefs
as this reality changes over time?
4. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and profit maximizing news sellers what
are pareto improving government interventions? When I taught at the Fletcher School, one student
suggested that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring people to watch the PBS News
Hour each night.
5. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and Russian propagandist news suppliers,
what are pareto improving government interventions for the nations that Russia is targeting with
this news? So, the U.S is fighting a war on terror ---- will we now open up a "second front" as we
start a "war on foreign propaganda"?
6. Why has "fake news" become an issue now? What is it about 2016? Has Facebook made communication
"too cheap"? Has Russia recognized this opportunity and increased its supply of fake news? In the
old days, Pravda was filled with such news.
The guys who leak documents for a living pointing out the establish leaks them to sway opinion!
I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley.
It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors?
US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack' , January 7, 2017
................ Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence
community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's
eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess
such evidence.
For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director
of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still
used by NSA.
Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect
to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery
why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum
cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email
disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."
There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates,
former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian
government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC
material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S.
intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.
In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's
credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual
assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.
However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave
false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans.
Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details
of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.
....................
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/
JohnH -> RGC...
"Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on
me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS?
Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own
90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities
- why shouldn't they think they could get away with it?
Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are
called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels.
Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from
the top.
And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news
channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in
them, even if they publish truth.
Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations.
His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press
in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too.
It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic.
You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against
rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do
something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree.
ilsm -> libezkova...
Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was
owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and
the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the
slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination.
Peace and freedom are not valued in the US or many other places.
yuan -> ilsm.. .
The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated
than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness
doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership
roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations.
Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud
is (should be) illegal.
Exactly. That's why those people who question MSM coverage, and who try to get the "second
opinion" on the current events from blogs, and other alternative channels are considered to be
traitors.
Neoliberal MSMs are major producer of fake news as in foreign coverage they are guided by State
Department talking points. What they are adamantly against is "somebody else" fake news. They
want full monopoly on coverage.
What they trying to tell us during this McCarthyism compaign is the following: "Unapproved,
rogue fake news of questionable origin are evil, only State Department approved fakes are OK".
This is another, slightly more interesting, variant of "political correctness" enforcement
in a given society.
"Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who
are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned
to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember
Matrix.
There is a special term for the psychological condition of the large part of the USSR population
who adapted to live such an "artificial, fake reality" and even may protest if they are provided
with a more objective picture as this created a cognitive dissonance. It is Stockholm Syndrome.
The condition common among the members of "high demand" cults.
The same happened in the USA. This neoliberal ideological captivity with its own set of myths
and falsehood reminds me USSR Bolshevism ideology, which was an official, dominant ideology for
Soviet people. Indoctrination was obligatory.
The net results was the same as now in the USA -- the dead ideology burdens, like a nightmare,
the minds of the living.
As Marx noted: "history repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce"
Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book "Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation"
called this condition of ideological Stockholm syndrome "hypernormalization"
He argues that during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union, everyone in the USSR knew
the system wasn't working, but as no one has real alternative and both politicians and citizens
were resigned to pretending that the can should be kicked down the road. A typical attitude of
Hillary supporters.
This "constant pretending" was accepted as normal behavior and the fake reality thus created
was accepted as necessary evil, nessesary for normal functining of the society. The whole society
reminded me large "high demand" cult from which members can't escape.
While Yurchak called this effect "hypernormalisation." in reality this probably should be called
"ideological Stockholm syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that causes
hostages to develop sympathetic sentiments towards their captors, often sharing their opinions
and acquiring romantic feelings for them as a survival strategy during captivity.
Looking at events over the past few years, one would notice that the neoliberal society is
experiencing the same psychological condition.
Here are a couple of insightful reviews of the book
== quote ==
Igor Biryukov on November 1, 2012
A cautionary tale
In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil
Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan
who advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not
so fast -- says Alexei Yurchak.
He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in California. He employs
linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the Soviet Union was once
a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself
included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies
can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.
Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare
its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative
discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system
and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together.
According to Yurchak "In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much
more than a deconstruction of Soviet authoritative discourse".
This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more
features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit.
The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian
people.
The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with the
Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project.
The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent.
The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral
and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by
the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives.
These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship
and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of
law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important.
For many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily
equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.
Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between
ideological enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological
rule, which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet
Union the paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master
signifier [Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to
totalitarian temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed.
The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state are waiting in the shadows here as well,
may be ready to appropriate discourse.
It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective.
... ... ...
Nils Gilmanon April 23, 2014
A brilliant account of the interior meaning of everyday life for ordinary soviet citizens
Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters
or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the
powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little
more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures.
Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were
either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling)
or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet
socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in
the population.
While his entire account is a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under
the Soviet system, Yurchak also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed
for some people (such as theoretical physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways
freer than for their peers in the West. All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an
explanation for the nostalgia that many in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable
to those who claim that Communism was simply and nothing but an evil.
The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative
rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime.
One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the
authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend
to believe them."
Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an
official resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement
of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected
to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the
ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they
might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing
to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)
The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely
formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the
1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because
of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity
and meaning.
Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or
art collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue
their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created
new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their
(inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation
of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the
regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that
transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.
"And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives
of a just peace."
Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer,
jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back.
JohnH -> yuan... January 08, 2017 at 12:08 PM
yuan never had the pleasure of watching the mainstream media promote the official Kool-Aid
during the Vietnam War...until the lies finally became untenable.
DeDude -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 11:38 AM
"the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels:
official channels are viewed too compromised"
Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can
be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot
more long-term harm to society than most people realize.
Being a knowledgeable person who spend half a lifetime studying a subject, seems to be worse
than being a regular ignorant guy confidently pulling stuff out of his ass. We are living in interesting
times.
JohnH -> DeDude...
"As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse." Wow!
Trying to judge the more credible liar.
Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot!
Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign
and his subsequent behavior.
The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
Notable quotes:
"... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
"... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
"... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
"... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
"... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
"... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
"... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
"... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
"... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
"... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
"... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
"... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
"... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
"... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
"... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
"... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
"... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
"... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
"... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated
on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.
People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump
will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their
minds.
I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story.
People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe
it.
People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story".
Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday
Night Live sketch about Trump.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just
partisan warfare.
"Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about
how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
"This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials
who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet
another hit."
CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?
Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going
to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.
Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will
cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.
Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid
things you say by association.
We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they
damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges
won't cut it.
Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of
the day barely made a ripple...
...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents
seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented....
Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential
transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his
party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."
"they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing
will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven
his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information
about Bush43 as a draft dodger.
In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness
for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.
In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect,
though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the
buzz feed overreach.
Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.
There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette.
Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer
in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership
before the Bush administration.
We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.
It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report.
It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who
hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
"My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before
buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the
intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
"Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."
I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in
2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it
depresses turnout.
Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost.
It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.
Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that
Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is
Putin's fault' narrative comes in.
Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify
Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.
Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very
sick.
There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and
too specific.
The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us
weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.
We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost
us for decades.
Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will
be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems.
The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of
democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.
Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing
Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom
of the press.
Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about
Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary
could never wrap here head around.
Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of
fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.
This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But
despite this Paul wood provided a
good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as
they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies
the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters.
Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
Notable quotes:
"... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
"... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
"... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
"... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
"... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
"... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
"... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
"Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"
By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago
"Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election
team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life.
The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they
have come to light.
The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States
would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising
material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes
the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money
to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.
Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by
a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.
As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy
giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB,
the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.
They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential
suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company
that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.
The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape -
if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly
lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.
[Image of Trump's Tweet]
Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself,
outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited
news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said,
"and certainly should never have been released."
He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".
The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump
superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.
Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter.
But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial
risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier
to the FBI against the firm's advice.
[Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]
And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the
president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by
"the head of an East European intelligence agency".
Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with
the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more
than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the
Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".
'Be very careful'
The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why
- according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack
Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump
himself.
Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been
made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in
Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
as well as a mini-bar.
At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very
careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have
cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.
One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat
on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are
prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they
might make.
A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about
the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."
Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.
But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts
by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.
Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint
intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid
money to his campaign through his associates.
Legal applications
On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian
banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify
only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything -
giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard
from other sources.
"I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he
would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly -
a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential
campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot
act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.
The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic,
US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice.
For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies:
the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency,
responsible for electronic spying.
Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application.
They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic
records from two Russian banks.
Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a
more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order
was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.
Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign
citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation
is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony
offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three
of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump,"
he said.
I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any
wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied
any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.
The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the
Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding
back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.
Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures
in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House
and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in
Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang
of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed
to take notes.
'Puppet'
In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you
and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess
explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers,
and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr
Trump praises at every opportunity.
"The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this
information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing
it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."
The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing
about the Fisa warrant.
It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump -
or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence
the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.
If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal
FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher
of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump.
Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if
it exists).
It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was
foreshadowed during the campaign.
During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's
leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton.
"You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."
In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote:
"In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.
Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni
durak" - a useful fool.
The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence
community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration,
they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."
Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to "Trust, Don't Verify" in New Cold War
By Mark Weisbrot
Just as the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, the first casualty of the New Cold War is irony. Our most prominent
journalists seem to have missed the Orwellian irony of Senator John McCain asking Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James
Clapper at Friday's Senate hearings if Julian Assange has any credibility. Assange has maintained that the hacked or leaked emails
of Democratic Party officials did not come from the Russian government, or any other government.
As is well known, Clapper lied to Congress about a serious violation of the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans.
This lie is a crime for which he actually could have been prosecuted.
In March 2013, Clapper falsely answered, "No, sir" to the question, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions,
or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He later admitted that his answer was untrue.
Clapper lied again in Friday's testimony, saying that Assange was "under indictment" for "a sexual crime." In fact, Assange
has not been indicted for anything, and the government of Sweden has never even charged him with a crime. In reality, he is a
political prisoner, and the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has found that he has been arbitrarily detained
since 2010 by the UK and Sweden, and ordered his release and compensation. He has offered from the beginning of his political
persecution to co-operate with the Swedish authorities in any investigation, and to be interviewed at any time in London. He could
not safely return to Sweden without guarantees that he would not be sent to the US, where he currently faces a high likelihood
of imprisonment (even before any trial) for having published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes and other embarrassments.
For years, neither Sweden nor the UK would agree to that because, it appears, their foreign ministries are collaborating with
the US government to keep him imprisoned.
For anyone on a jury who had to weigh the testimony of Clapper against that of Assange, it would be a no-brainer. Not only
is Clapper a proven and serial liar, but in 10 years of WikiLeaks revelations, Assange has never been shown to have lied about
anything.
That said, it is entirely possible the Russian government was involved in the hacking of emails here, and that Assange and
WikiLeaks would not necessarily be able to identify the original source of the leaks, which is very difficult to do. However,
We the People have yet to be presented with evidence that Russian hacking is what actually happened.
But the media has become so distracted with the festivities at America's new 1950's theme party, hating on Putin and Russia
like there's no tomorrow, that the lack of evidence has become almost irrelevant to the big media conversation. The DNI report
released on Friday, supposedly to provide the public with evidence that the Russian government had indeed hacked emails in order
to influence the US elections, contained no actual evidence that they did so. There was a lot of evidence that Trump was the preferred
candidate of Putin and his government. But we didn't need evidence for this; pure logic would have sufficed. What government wouldn't
favor a candidate who promises better relations with them?
About half of the report was littered with a long rant against Russian-sponsored media, including the television station Russia
Today. Here is another deep irony: the media that swung the election for Trump was not Russian but American, despite the fact
that most of these journalists and editors found the candidate repellent. Trump's huge advantage in free publicity not only won
him the primary, but continued into the general election. It was the US media that made the Comey letter so important, because
the broadcast media used it to displace Trump's scandals, including the allegations of sexual assaults, in the crucial last 11
days when millions of voters made up their minds.
Another irony: The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many
hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did
to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016? Of course that is no justification for any foreign intervention
here, but it is part of the current story if we want to understand it. Washington's intervention in Ukraine, for example, helped
push that country into a civil war that became the main cause of the current state of Cold War between the US and Russia....
'The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions
of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections
was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016?'
Indeed. However, we may insist (feebly) that
this is NOT something which Great Powers do
to one another.
"The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The initial
goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the
Eastern Front. After winning World War I, the Allies militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia. Allied efforts
were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness after they just finished greater conflict, and a lack of domestic support.
These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia and
Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[3]"
"... Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited. ..."
"... It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking . ..."
"... If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning . ..."
"... Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed. ..."
Masha Gessen hardly can be called a sympasizer of Putin;-). Actually the reverse is very true.
The New McCarthyism
"Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence" [Masha Gessen,
New York Review of Books
]. "On Friday, when the report appeared, the
major newspapers came out with virtually identical headlines highlighting
the agencies' finding that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an
"influence campaign" to help Donald Trump win the presidency-a finding the
agencies say they hold 'with high confidence.'
A close reading of the report shows that it barely supports such a
conclusion. Indeed, it barely supports any conclusion."
And: "That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support
its estimation of Putin's motives for allegedly working to elect Trump:
conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other
continents-and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements." A
massive takedown, from the heart of the Manhattan intelligentsia.
Class Warfare
[A study published late last month by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)]
released Dec. 20, said the jobs of between 1.34 million and 1.67 million truck drivers would be at
risk due to the growing utilization of heavy-duty vehicles operated via artificial intelligence.
That would equal 80 to 100 percent of all driver jobs listed in the CEA report, which is based on
May 2015 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Department of Labor. There are
about 3.4 million commercial truck drivers currently operating in the U.S., according to various
estimates" [DC Velocity]. "The Council emphasized that its calculations excluded the number or types
of new jobs that may be created as a result of this potential transition. It added that any changes
could take years or decades to materialize because of a broad lag between what it called
"technological possibility" and widespread adoption."
What I'm disappointed in the DNC and the Party as a whole is rather than
admit their failings, they want to conjure up Russia as a distraction. I'm not
saying that Putin's a great guy (he seems to be an oligarch), but the Democrats
need to take responsibility for 2016.
If not, 2020 might end up like 2016 again. If they think Trump will fail no
matter what, take a hard look at what happened to Kerry in 2004. Stop
underestimating Trump. He's got a base and the Democrats screwed up big time.
If Democrats take "responsibility" for 2016, the courtesan class will be
wiped out, and many elected Dems who dream of a spot on the ticket in 2020
will have to accept they are going no where. Andy Cuomo sees himself in 2020
running. He's like Hillary without the charisma.
Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take
responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be
discredited.
One question though, Clinton had charisma? Are we talking about the
same candidate here? I though that Clinton was a wooden stump. You could
tell that what she said was forced. Apparently one of the Wikileaks leaks
said that she hated the American people.
It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded
that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want
to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking .
If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC
links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary
(and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as
Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning .
The new McCarthyism . when the IC report came out it was noted the numbers
on the RT/CNN comparison report were inaccurate. Someone looked and it turned
out the numbers were from several years ago . and the person criticized the
report for including a 4 to 5 year old criticism of RT to pad the length of the
report.
I wonder how long the mainstream media (see CNN above) can sustain the
left's jouissance WRT Bernie until it blows up in their face? It seems like the
elite liberal class is finding his "voice" a far more useful resistance to
Trump compared to the overly simplified identity narrative or pathetic
"foreign" threat narrative, but how long can they play with that fire. The fact
is, Bernie really does talk about issues and policy, in a concrete way, in a
demonstrable way. Those perspectives with class consciousness, and a dash of
populist passions and you have political nitro far more threatening to the
establishment than anything Trump can dish out. I'm all for it though I am very
suspicious. I'm wondering what they (liberal elites) are cooking up.
Nope, it was Putin's fault. Although, in fairness, Linker doesn't claim it
was Obama's fault, only that he "helped prepare the way for the
anti-establishment, populist wave " Master propagandist Putin knows a good
opportunity when he sees one:
Moscow is pushing populist movements to bring 'real security threats
to Europe,' new report says
[McClatchy]
"Moscow is encouraging a wave of populism that extends from the election of
President-elect Donald Trump through Brexit and rise of nationalist politics in
France and Germany to bring about 'real security threats to Europe,' "
according to a report in a new NATO journal."
Don trumpioni and his capos are gonna woyk on keepyn the nayburhood nice
again kapeesh ??
As to the new McCarthyism, despite the capacity of fartspace and garggle to
have algorithms filter certain "thoughts", the problems for the death spiral
media are not going away and the death of myspace is a perfect example of the
capacity of the blob to choke on its own vomit same for the rise and fall of
the aol reich it was everywhere and then it was nothing
Some self stylized masters of the universe imagine their luck as
genius Cuban andreesson
when all they are good at(which is good for their own pocket) is selling as
soon as the griddle gets hot and the sound of the searing begins
The internet of no-things and self krashing kars are well designed pitches
but the details
getting a virus or giving a virus to your over inquisitive refrigerator
should deal with the all seeing pinkman brigade
last I checked, customer service was not exactly the top issue concerning
wall street
Money isnt being spent on the infrastructure that exists today all this big
blobber nonsense will require a tenfold increase in maintenance
or are the folks who could not or would not program a vcr to reset the time
automaticaly when there was a power outage suddenly all qualify to be mensa
members
Is the United States the victim of an unprovoked cyber and media attack by
Russia and China or are the chickens coming home to roost after Washington's
own promotion of such activity worldwide? On Thursday Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper
asserted
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while no foreign
government had been able to interfere with actual voting machines, "U.S.
agencies are more confident than ever that Russia interfered in America's
recent presidential election. And he called the former Cold War foe an
'existential threat' to the nation." Pressed by Senator John McCain whether the
"attack" constituted an "act of war," Clapper demurred, saying that it would be
a "very heavy policy call" to say so. He also said that he could not judge if
the election outcome had been changed due to the claimed outside interference.
Clapper also claimed that the Russian effort included including the creation
and dissemination of fake stories,
explaining that
" While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this
is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted." Clapper
singled out Russian state funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today.
"Of course RT was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view,
disparaging our system."
[Full disclosure: I have been on RT numerous
times.]
Apart from the nonsense about foreign broadcasters being part of a
conspiracy to "disparage our system" and destroy our democracy, I confess that
I was willing to be convinced by what seemed to be the near-unanimous
intelligence and law enforcement agency verdict but, any such expectations
disappeared when the 17 page report on the hack was actually released on
Friday. Entitled
Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections
, the report is an exercise in speculation
minus evidence indicting alleged Russian interference in the recent election.
It even came with a significant caveat, "Judgments are not intended to imply
that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."
So I am still waiting to see the actual evidence for the Russian direct
involvement and have to suspect that there is little to show, or possibly even
nothing. Saying that Russian government agents were employed in passing the
stolen emails from the DNC server to WikiLeaks raises more questions than it
answers, particularly as it is now clear from media leaks that the parties
involved were using what is referred to as cut-outs to break the chain of
custody of the material being passed. Does the intelligence community actually
know exactly who passed what to whom and when or is it engaged in
reconstructing what it think happened? Does it really believe that intercepted
unencrypted phone calls among Russian officials expressing pleasure over the
election result equate to an actual a priori conspiracy to determine the
outcome? And based on what evidence do they know that conspiracy was "ordered"
by President Vladimir Putin as is now being alleged? Or are the only assuming
that it must have been him because he is head of state?
... ... ...
When I was in Europe with CIA the U.S. government regularly interfered with elections,
particularly in Italy, Spain, France and Portugal, all of which had active communist parties. The
Agency would fund opposition parties directly or indirectly and would manage media coverage of
the relevant issues to favor the non-communists. The end result was that the communists were
indeed in most cases kept out of government but the resulting democracy was frequently corrupted
by the process. Italy in particular suffers from that corruption to this day.
The United States has directly interfered in Russia, using proxies, IMF loans and a media
controlled by the oligarchs to run the utterly incompetent Boris Yeltsin's successful campaign in
1996 and then continuing with more aggressive "democracy promotion" projects until Putin expelled
many of the NGOs responsible in 2015. More recently there have been the pastel revolutions in
Eastern Europe and the upheaval in Ukraine, which came about in part due to a $5 billion
investment by the United States government in "democracy building" supplemented by regular visits
from John McCain and the State Department's activist Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.
"... Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous ..."
"... The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States. ..."
"... The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them. ..."
"... In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations. ..."
"... By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29] ..."
"... While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. ..."
"... To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented. ..."
"... CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story ..."
"... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network! ..."
"... Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability. ..."
The mainstream media's narrative that the Russian government interfered with the United States election,
and that this interference invalidated, or at least tainted, Trump's election has culminated in President
Obama taking a series of measures against Russia, which consist of: imposing sanctions on the GRU
and the FSB (the two major Russian intelligence organizations), four officers of the GRU, and two
Russian individuals who allegedly used "cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and
personal identifying information;" expelling 35 diplomats and intelligence officials; and closing
two Russian compounds in Maryland's Eastern Shore and Long Island, New York. These actions were said
to have been taken not only because of Russian interference in the election but for a number of other
instances of Russian malfeasance that go back in time and are unrelated to alleged election interference.
And there was no evidence provided that showed, or even claimed to show, that the particular individuals
and entities covered by these measures had anything to do with the alleged election interference.
[1]
Like other common memes-such as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism-used to silence debate, the
exact meaning of Russian interference in the election is unclear-and Obama's inclusion of a number
of extraneous issues in his explanation for taking retaliatory action against Russia muddles the
issue even more. The reference to Russian interference in the election includes a composite of alleged
Russian misdeeds-"fake news," computer hacking, and manipulating voting machines
[2] –which are usually lumped together but are actually quite different and should be analyzed
separately since the combination approach only serves to obfuscate the issue. Of course-and this
probably would not be shocking to most readers of this essay-many of those who promote the idea of
Russian culpability are not really concerned about pursuing a Socratic search for truth but instead
want to anathematize Putin's Russia and/or delegitimize Trump's election victory.
First, let me take care of the most extreme claim-that Russian hackers manipulated election results
to make Trump president. This would be a nearly impossible task since voting machines are not attached
to the Internet, and it was never pointed out how the Russians could do this on any significant scale.
[3] Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election
lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton
seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins.
The group claimed to have statistical evidence that the vote had been altered.
[4] The basis of this claim, however, was quite flimsy since it simply rested on an analysis
that showed that in Wisconsin counties with electronic voting machines, Clinton received 7 percent
fewer votes than in counties with paper ballots or optical scanners. It was then assumed that the
same thing could have occurred in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
There was a recount in Wisconsin in which Trump increased his victory margin by 131 votes; a total
of 2.976 million ballots were cast. The recount was requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein
who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.
[5] Similar efforts by Stein to get recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania were blocked in the
state courts because of her lack of standing by the laws of those states-not having any chance of
winning herself, she could not be considered an "aggrieved party." Hillary Clinton's campaign did
not make official efforts to get recounts in any states. With Trump's victory in Wisconsin surviving
the recount, he had garnered a majority of the electoral votes, which would make him President unless
there were a far higher number of faithless electors than turned out to be the case. Nonetheless,
half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.
[6]
Now to consider the ramifications of Russia's hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the reception and release to
the public of this Russian-hacked information by WikiLeaks. While this is assumed to be incontestably
true by the mainstream media, neither one of these allegations is rock solid at the moment. The alleged
consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies is that there is sufficient evidence that Russia hacked the
aforementioned emails, but the evidence for this has not been made available to the public nor is
there proof that WikiLeaks relied on emails derived from Russian hacks. Given the fact that America's
intelligence agencies are not noted for being honest with the public, one would think that the mainstream
media would give some attention to the critics of the dominant narrative.
Reacting to these allegations, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, claims that his organization
did not release any information provided to it by Russia or a Russian proxy. And Assange does have
a vested interest in being truthful in order to maintain WikiLeaks' credibility, which has so far
been impeccable. Confirming Assange's contention is Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan
and a close associate of Assange, though not an official member of the WikiLeaks staff. Murray stated:
"As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained
countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks." He goes on to claim: "Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access?
Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of
the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider
truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one
of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully
challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling." Murray alleges that the
two sets of emails-from the DNC and from Podesta–came from American insiders but from different sources.
[7]
Obviously, the security agencies should provide the public with detailed evidence and describe
the actual sources. As Pat Buchanan suggests: "The CIA director and his deputies should be made to
testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps
but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to
put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins."
[8]
Now it should be pointed out that the actual content of the emails released by WikiLeaks, which
the U.S. claims to have been obtained by Russian hacking, has not been falsified. The information
harmful to Hillary Clinton included the DNC's behind-the-scenes support for her over Bernie Sanders
(which included then DNC chair Donna Brazile's feeding answers to Clinton before the latter's debate
with Bernie Sanders); Clinton's unpublicized paid speeches-on foreign policy and the economy– to
wealthy business executives and bankers revealing views diametrically opposed to her campaign positions;
the collusion of mainstream media reporters with the DNC. For example, Washington Post columnist
Dana Milbank requested and got the DNC to do the research for a negative column he wrote about Trump.
ORDER IT NOW
If the WikiLeaks information were completely fallacious, it would not have been derived from hacking
or even from leaks, but simply fabricated. Nonetheless, this defense is being made. The logical form
of this argument is that hacking took place but that the released emails were doctored to make them
damaging. But this is based on the fact that it is possible to doctor emails, rather than any evidence
that the WikiLeaks' emails were altered. The assumption being made was that Russia was capable of
doctoring the emails, therefore, the emails must be doctored. For example, Jamie Winterton, director
of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, was quoted as saying: "I would
be shocked if the emails weren't altered," and went on to say that Russia was well-known to have
used this technique in the past.
ix Similarly, Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin asserted: "We are not going to confirm
the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire
to damage Hillary Clinton." He referred to doctored emails that supposedly appeared on websites linked
to Russian intelligence as proof that "documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian
misinformation campaign," although Caplin did not say that the emails concerning Clinton's speeches
had been faked.
x According to James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique
that goes back to Tsarist times." Among his examples, he referred to the Soviet-spread rumor that
the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus. Needless to say, this, too, had nothing to do with
WikiLeaks much less the emails it released on Clinton and the DNC.
[11]
MSNBC's terrorist analyst and a former intelligence officer, Malcolm Nance, tweeted a message,
shortly after WikiLeaks' October release of some of Podesta's emails, that these emails were "riddled
with obvious forgeries," without ever providing evidence.
[12] If any emails released by WikiLeaks were "obvious forgeries," it would seem quite easy for
U.S. intelligence agencies to point this out without using any secret, super-high tech methods, and
thus substantiate the case being made.
Interestingly, Nance was also quoted as taking the opposite position: "We have no way of knowing
whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they've said and comes
out and says it cross-correlates and this is true."
[13] Here, Nance seems to be saying that WikiLeaks' could only be considered accurate if Hillary
would show this to be the case. Since Hillary is not going to indict herself, this is not going to
happen. However, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the emails were altered to
point out the discrepancies between the emails released by WikiLeaks and the DNC's and Podesta's
actual emails. It would not be necessary to go through the whole tranche but simply focus on the
detrimental emails. If this is not done, then claims that the WikiLeaks provides specious information
should be dropped. So far, however, there seems to be little effort to show that the damaging information
was untrue.
[14]
Actually, it seems that much of the hostility to the WikiLeaks' information has little to do with
it being false but rather that the emails were pilfered and made public. Adam Schiff, a Democratic
congressman from California, who serves as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, and Jane Harman, who is currently the president of the Wilson Center and a former
ranking Democratic member of the same House committee state: "Russia's theft and strategic leaking
of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other officials present a challenge to the
U.S. political system unlike anything we've experienced."
[15] Note that these writers charge Russia not only with illicitly obtaining the emails but also
of "strategic leaking," which was obviously the work of WikiLeaks, and for which no evidence whatsoever
exists that Russia determined when the materials would be leaked.
The New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes that "[t]he pro-Putin
tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election . . . . By midsummer the
close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site's
growing alignment with white nationalists." Krugman goes on to blame the mainstream media for giving
attention to WikiLeaks. "Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian
hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing
more than the fact that Democrats are people."
[16] However, if nothing harmful was revealed, it is hard to maintain that Russian hacking had
a significant effect on the election. If harm were done to the Democrats, it was presumably caused
by the media, which falsely implied that serious revelations were being made by WikiLeaks.
Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson
contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored
aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions
and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are
at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and
much more."
[17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long
ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment
liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash
our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks
our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous .
[18]
Michael Daly of the liberal millennials–oriented "Daily Beast" writes: "Russians went from simply
gathering our secrets to then making them public in such a way as to influence American public opinion
and therefore the course of our democracy. Putin must marvel at the fervently patriotic, flag-waving
Americans who shrug at the near certainty that a foreign power had subverted the electoral process
that is at the heart of America's true greatness."
[19]
It is not apparent how receiving accurate information regarding political issues-which is what
WikiLeaks seems to have provided-could really have a negative impact on American democracy; rather
it would seem that it would actually improve democracy. The purpose of Voice of America is supposed
to be to provide such information to foreign countries and especially to those where the governments
prevent the facts from reaching their inhabitants. The idea is that people in foreign countries should
know the truth about their own government and about other governments, as well.
The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed
a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense
capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the
NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society.
They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom
of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy
democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts."
[20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom
of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign
organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing
in the United States.
The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something
novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election"
because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House
with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump
as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated
improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them.
While the mainstream media implies that what Russia was allegedly attempting to do had never happened
before, foreign countries had actually tried to shape American policies since the George Washington
administration
[21] when the ambassador from revolutionary France, popularly known as Citizen Genet, came to
the United States in 1793 and sought to generate popular support to get the United States to modify
its strict neutrality policy to one that would be helpful to France in its war with Great Britain.
Genet even commissioned privateers to attack British shipping. Ultimately, however, President Washington
and his Cabinet, angered by Genet's activities that violated American sovereignty, demanded his recall.
Genet simultaneously fell from favor in France as more radical Jacobins led by Robespierre took power
and fearing he might face the guillotine if he returned to France, Genet requested and received asylum
in the United States.
In 1867-1868, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. resorted to bribing lobbyists, newspapers, and
members of Congress in order to make sure that the U.S. Congress would provide the funds for the
treaty already signed by Secretary of State Seward (and approved by the Senate) to purchase Alaska.
In World War I both Germany and England were relying heavily on propaganda in the U.S.-the British
goal to get the U.S. into the war on its side; the German goal to keep the U.S. out of the war. In
1917, Britain Illicitly intercepted and decoded what became known as the Zimmerman Telegram, which
was a message from the German foreign ministry to its ambassador in Mexico instructing him to inform
the Mexican government that Germany would, if the United States joined the war against it, support
a Mexican effort to regain its former territory taken by the United States (though technically purchased)
as a result of the Mexican-American War.
[22] After Britain turned the information over to the U.S. government, the publication of the
telegram in March 1917 may have played a supporting role in America's entrance into World War I in
April 1917.
In World War II, British intelligence closely cooperated with the Roosevelt administration and
the American interventionists-actually setting up pro-interventionist front groups–and engaged in
efforts to destroy the non-interventionists.
[23] Soviet agents were also trying to shape American foreign policy during World War II and
its aftermath in order to advance the interests of Stalinist Russia.
[24] And Israel (and the Zionist agency before Israel's founding) and its American supporters
have played a role in shaping America's policy in the Middle East policy since World War I.
[25]
Finally, let us explore the reasons for Obama's retaliation against the alleged Russian interference
in the election, which included activities-mostly, but not only, involving spying-that had been going
on for years. An obvious question is: why didn't Obama take action earlier?
It should be pointed out that it is commonplace for spies to pose as diplomats. And it is likewise
commonplace that a host country does nothing to stop the spying unless it goes too far or if the
host country wants to send a message that it is concerned about some other matter and does so by
expelling officials for spying who were not necessarily involved in the issue of concern. Obama's
expulsion edict fit the second category and was meant to show the U.S. government's ire regarding
the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.
[26] Therefore, Obama's retaliation against individuals and entities not involved in the matter
of concern was not unconventional and if there had not been any alleged interference in the U.S.
election, they likely would have been left alone.
Furthermore, it would appear that Obama chose to take action for political reasons: in order to
appeal to the Democratic base and the mainstream media, afflicted as those two groups are by Trump
Derangement Syndrome,
[27] and also to hardline opponents of Russia who loom large in the Republican Party and have
become a significant force among the Democratic elite (e.g. Brookings Institution).
In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting
to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary
to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the
case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until
the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve
friendlier relations.
Although it has been claimed that Obama had entertained issuing punitive measures against Russia
before the election, but opted against this to avoid possible Russian retaliation that could affect
the voting, it is not apparent that Obama would have taken comparable retaliatory action if Clinton
had won a clear-cut electoral victory.
[28] While Republican hardliners, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, might have wanted such
action, the Democrats would be satisfied with their victory, and Clinton and her foreign policy advisers,
even though they might be anti-Putin, would not want their hands tied by such measures. While Obama
is not a fan of Hillary Clinton, he did want her to be his successor, since that would have made
him look good; there would have been no reason to antagonize her, her supporters, or the Democratic
Party elite.
By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial
relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans
for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses
on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill
GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition
to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican
party."
[29]
While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive
order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and
some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce
Russian sanction legislation. In the past few years, an overwhelming majority in Congress has
voted for sanctions legislation against Russia, which makes it likely that there would be a veto-proof
majority to stymie Trump on this issue.
[30]
To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming
president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American
foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that
Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented.
Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington
bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?
It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots
of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative
socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking
China's influence, etc
So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases
risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and
shouting at each other.
Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable – and realistic
– final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run
90′s 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear
war – no winners there.
The disputes – from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters – are oversimplified and
intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and
there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in
Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to
get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth
of others and hating those who stop them. ,
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest
rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people
know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches
in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative
as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have
inordinate control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us
with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from
financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American
ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing
advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service
in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance
to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist
empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression.
The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations. ,
You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if
it could be any of these:
* inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
* profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify
the weapons systems they want to sell)
* Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states--the Germans
were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened
just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
* petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep
State machinations)
The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have
over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this
is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.
,
There is a deep-seated, visceral need for an Enemy, that's the point. Any kind of an enemy.
At present the Flavor of The Month is Russia, with China waiting in the wings.
As a footnote--and I wish could remember his name-- but earlier this week O'Reilly had some
guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the
CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the
CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right! ,
"So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?"
Many or perhaps most Washington elites, including Congressmen, US Supreme Court justices
(Kagan, Sotormayor, and Roberts), and the former president are sodomites and pederasts. President
Putin's refusal to celebrate their alternative deathstyle INFURIATES them.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the M-I complex faced a big problem: how
to maintain huge defense budgets when the main enemy had suddenly disappeared. Saddam's invasion
of Kuwait in August 1990 provided them with a temporary solution, as did 9-11. What we are
witnessing now is the latest chapter of this saga. Ross Perot was right: follow the money.
,
It depends on your point of view. From we schmucks who have to pay for it all, it's worse than
pointless. From the rulers' point of view, there are many of them as shown by the other replies.
To understand their points, here are a few primers.
Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child
here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial
rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that
Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and' the reason
why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get
the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated
hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.
-Woodrow Wilson, Speech at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, on the Peace Treaty and
the League of Nations (5 September 1919)
In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called "unnecessary," (WW2,) this 2 time
Medal of Honor recipient wrote...
" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for
Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."
Randolph Bourne left an unfinished, unpaginated draft of The State when he died during the
flu pandemic of 1918. The draft was published posthumously, with some material incorrectly
ordered, in Untimely Papers (1919). Nevertheless, The State , answers your question
in detail.
With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with
no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations,
the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision
with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war.
For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the
intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit
of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going
to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of
a bigger role in the destiny of the world.
-Randolph Bourne, The State, From Untimely Papers (1919).
Same reason as for hostility toward Serbs! The Serbs did not pose any treat to the Washington
"elite", yet they were demonized and destroyed. It was the thirst for Serb blood, and it is
the thirst for Russian blood that is the driving force behind the polices of the Washington
"elite". Simply put: RUSSOPHOBIA. ,
"The Guardian's anti-Putin propaganda has gotten into the bizarre. The editors have lost
touch with sanity."
Why the insanity? - Money.
"The Guardian and Soros-connected New East Network run anti-Putin and anti-Russia propaganda
daily. There is no shortage of pro-Ukraine propaganda either. That propaganda spills over onto
the Guardian website. This is a sinister conflict of interest for the Guardian. It should make
a full disclosure of the financial arrangements between itself and Soros.
George Soros has made his fortune on currency speculation, regime change, coups and vulture
capitalism. His current venture of destruction is Ukraine. Soros financed NGO's that fueled
the US led coup against the elected government of Ukraine and installed a cabal of fascists.
Soros is a major backer of anti-Putin NGO's in Russia. Soros constantly lobbies the US and
the EU to bail out Ukraine with Billions of dollars, of which he would be a big beneficiary.
Soros lobbies the US and the EU to destabilize Russia, which again would benefit him in Billions
of dollars (here)."
Peace is not profitable for the warmongers and financial speculators.
Policy wonks reinforcing existing delusional ideology....for example....in September, the Atlantic
Council, a mainstream US geopolitical think tank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian
world "marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war".
The new enemies were a "resurgent" Russia and an "increasingly aggressive" China. Only heroic
America can save us.
Two highly recommended reads:
The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World
The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part
that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia,
which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing
jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down. ,
Agree. "...the usual point of US foreign policy" is thievery of mineral resources and gold
reserves in the hapless countries that were selected to experience the US/NATO "humanitarian
interventions" and "democracy on the march"
Here is a great paper by Robert David Steele, "The Russians Did Not "Hack" the US Election
– a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russians-did-not-hack-the-us-election-a-few-facts-from-a-former-cia-spy/5567215
Steele gives a well-deserved black eye to the "perfumed princess and princesses" at the
State Dept and CIA He simply calls them traitors. Refreshing.
"Steele served in the Marine Corps as an 0203 Ground Intelligence Officer. After serving
4 years he joined CIA where he served for 10 years (3 tours overseas focused on extremist
and terrorist targets). He resigned CIA to accept an invitation from the Marine Corps to
stand up the Marine Corps Intelligence Center...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele
"What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations
win new markets.
The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that
articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which
will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The
time has come to try and slow China's growth down.
Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington
bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?
It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has
lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular,
relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism,
checking China's influence, etc...
So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases
risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility
and shouting at each other.
Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable - and realistic
- final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run
90's 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear
war - no winners there.
The disputes - from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters - are oversimplified and
intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut,
and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there
some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in
Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get
back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of
others and hating those who stop them.
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates
above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know
this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in
the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as
the US was in the 70′s. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate
control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with
1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial
oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't
believe me? Google "F-15′s in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to
Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive
generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This
is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire.
Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The
existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But
it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in
Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must
know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile
anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies
have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to
show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they
genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the
sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion
on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can
no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they
don't much care for reality. ,
Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:
- Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible
to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest
rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.
- The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people
know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.
- Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches
in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative
as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have
inordinate control.
- Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian
state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us
with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from
financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American
ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing
advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service
in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance
to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)
- The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist
empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression.
The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points – and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90′s opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But
it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in
Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work – one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must
know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile
anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies
have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to
show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they
genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the
sacred election – it is an act of war!!!!" – where would you even start a rational discussion
on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can
no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they
don't much care for reality.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational
hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation
to me. ,
"But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"
I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers
being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.
What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?
Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with
Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic
and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from
Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained
good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk
in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.
There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was
a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was
a part of a coup against Putin.
Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements)
wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against
it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull
volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the
world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash?
Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin?
In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up
having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.
Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who
was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin
watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never
let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling
in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started.
Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against
the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not
want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons.
Neocons were furious.
One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like
Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed.
Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells
you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily
change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on
how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies
to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication
channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.
Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's
revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex
Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war
against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.
In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with
saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos
of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a
coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark,
Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings
were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The
coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they
had it, it would finish Assad off.
I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the
refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee
camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic.
It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind
the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria
where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was
Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls
for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement
in Syria?
Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech
about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching
Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who
was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?
In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran.
Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin?
What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two
more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which
Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter
planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?
Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it
is not because of Russia's military strength. ,
"What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today?"
It is a vicious hatred of expropriators towards any resistance to their thieving-thuggish
advances. They want these mineral resources now. They want this gold reserve now. The
cognitive cacophony among the "deciders" is beyond comprehension: they are afraid of
truth like vampires are afraid of light. This seems like a consequence of weeding out
the principled and competent among the highest echelons of US government. Instead, as
the propornot story shows, there is a triumph of DC career opportunists who would say
anything and would do anything to get their money and to maintain their power. Rather
scary.
You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if
it could be any of these:
* inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
* profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify
the weapons systems they want to sell)
* Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states–the Germans
were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just
weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
* petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep
State machinations)
I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources,
obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it
really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington.
Why escalate now? What has changed?
It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia
is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing
with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know
that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger
at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have
their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)
So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show
their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely
lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election
- it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?
Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer
tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care
for reality.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
"fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria - it doesn't matter
that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the
symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative
ally.
The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the
early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski
for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses
in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' - yes, many
are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia
haters, often just the opposite.
"the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent
energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people - often millennials and recent
Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred
seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
The military spending goes on and on - the need for an excuse is hard to document. There
is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient
enemies" - so that explanation also seems secondary.
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is
just stupidity - ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests,
how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much
else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How
can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly? ,
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to
me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA). ,
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination
(and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to
me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA).
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way
to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is
no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one
policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any
sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for
one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.
As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in
US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely
underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological
alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.
That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement
in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although
anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.
I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes
sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something
of that sort:
I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions
in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's
mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign
affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration
with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll
CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced
Brzezinski before me.
He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break
Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in
the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the
neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian
military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced
into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia
and the Russians.
I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago,
Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled
the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So
you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians
who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.
Obama and his professional disinformation minions concocted a Russia-hacking-DNC BS story to
rationalize to the public their desires to punish Russia for thwarting their evil plans in Ukraine
and Syria.
Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.
I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations,
never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.
I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems--or
more specifically their funders/puppetmasters--to stay in the headlines by any means necessary.
"Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories."
As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a
PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense
or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.
These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized.
The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious
hysteria.
The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic
zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes
for rebelling against whatever whatever.
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
"fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter
that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic
defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative
ally.
The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early
Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for
all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses
in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' – yes, many are,
but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters,
often just the opposite.
"the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent
energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent
Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems
fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
The military spending goes on and on – the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is
almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies"
– so that explanation also seems secondary.
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just
stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to
write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It
is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced
society drop its intellectual standards so quickly?
Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't
matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved,
why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
I was thinking of "now" in terms of a larger time-frame, going back at least to the Sochi
olympics, which is when I started to especially take notice of the anti-Russia rhetoric.
So I wasn't thinking of Aleppo specifically, but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart
an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian
government. That seems to be when things really started heating up.
Syria is fragmented, but it's not over yet. I think it may be made more whole in the
future. Additionally, it hasn't been fragmented to the extent originally desired.
And there must be some anger that Russia would step in and intervene at all, even if
much of what was desired has already been accomplished.
Brzezinski has at times expressed more moderate opinions, but most of what I've seen,
even in recent years, has been quite anti-Russian. Maybe I've missed some statements, but
what I've seen from him has been pretty consistent in treating the situation in the Ukraine
as a case of Russian aggression, deserving sanctions at least. And the "reset" under Obama
I would need to go back and look at more closely. Is it possible it was a feint of some
sort? I have to admit I wasn't following US-Russian policy very closely at the time.
And I'm not sure about the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle. I don't know enough about
that history or what the average intellectual with Russian Jewish ancestry thinks about
Russia.
[B]ut the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often
millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are
post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
This may be lazy but I'd say that in many cases it's because it's the Zionist line right
now. The LGBT angle also makes it easy to whip up opposition toward Russia. In general,
Russia has come to represent in many westerners' minds the anti-liberal. ,
It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really
is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to
take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders.
One interpretation might be that American capitalism is based upon the need for constant
expansion and in the course of that expansion obstacles along the way must be overcome.
If it can no longer grow and expand it'll implode upon itself. This is the inner dynamic
forcing it's outward movement. Russia has risen from the wreckage of twenty-five years ago
and is now ascendant and represents a barrier. It has sabotaged US schemes in Ukraine and
Syria and is asserting it's own sphere of interest. An implosion of the US balloon would
be disastrous since there is no ethnic, political or cultural cohesiveness within it to
soften the impact.
The leadership has become divorced from everyday reality. Most are theorists with no real-world
experience and all come out of the same 3-4 universities. In late stage empires that crumble
the leadership class are often absorbed in petty rivalries, become decadent hedonists and
distrust their own population. Incompetent and uncaring, they're prone to rashness and taking
the empire down with them. The US seems to be at that point.
Whatever they did or didn't do, Trump has been made to look small, and that is the one thing
he cannot stand. Putin will soon be wishing that Hillary had won.
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are
there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
War, cold or hot, sells weapons. The warmongers own the politicians. You've never figured this
out?
The insanity continues as "liberal" Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) suggested that the Intelligence
agencies will "get back" at President Trump, and that all Americans should praise their secret
and mostly illegal, unconstitutional, and inhuman efforts. The few remaining true progressives/liberals
in America must have gagged at his comments.
The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have
over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this
is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.
If Russian hackers did not exist, it would be necessary for the CIA to invent them. The Empire's
geopolitical agenda of putting Russia in its place is thereby advanced, the truth of the allegations
is irrelevent.
That Trump is a Russian agent is a big fat stupid naked lie riding on the back of an even bigger
lie. The lie that Russia is a threat to the U.S. Its a pity that so many man hours must be devoted
to refuting it. The lie is perpetrated by imperialists who intend to rule the world by force of
arms. They are psychotic and extremely dangerous to the people of earth. Bubba, Dubya and Obama
have been happy to serve them. Hillary was to be the fourth horseman.
The fourth horseman is mentioned in Revelation 6:8, "I looked, and there before me was a pale
horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. "
Trump is not an imperialist. He is not one of them. He is his own man. He is a nationalist.
He would be a player in a multi-polar world. He is a threat to their insane plans. They have tried
and are trying to neutralize him with lies and slander and have failed. Now they must deal with
him or martyr him. Which will it be?
I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy
seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters.
It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership,
is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election.
I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S. -- you
simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.
Allow me to propose another cause for the mysterious Anglo-Zionist hostility toward Russia.
That is, the instability of the empire. The huge military spending supports the Petrodollar
system. The petrodollar system keeps the dollar as reserve currency. Then dollar creation by the
federal reserve taxes all users of the dollar, or the world. This tax helps finance the military
spending. And so on, ad infinitum. This positive feedback loop holds the status quo in the current
state.
But if the petrodollar system is broken, the US will have to pay its own way. The US tax cows
would rebel, then bye bye to the empire. Imagine if Germany and Russia joined in a trade zone,
let alone a gold standard union. The US standard of living would drop like a rock overnight. We'd
have to relearn to produce stuff. Perhaps US oligarchs would lose control in the resulting social
disruption.
So to avoid this scenario, the US deep state whips up anti-Russian hysteria aimed at both US
and European sheeple.
Great comment. It's worth noting, though, that the US standard of living in the intermediate
to long run would not drop for the middle and working classes. It's the looter class (and their
clients in the underclass and the bureaucracies to serve them) which would lose out in a really
big way.
Well they couldn't put the Pantsuit into the President suite. Even when they got the best
bunch of ducks in a row ever! Almost the perfect storm of idiots all in sink to force or cram
the worst of the evils, two or more) even against unlikely DT, and with the PTB & company jumping
ship from the Republicans enmasse, still they got beat.
The Democrats almost had the thing, But they are myopic special issue, (needs) Identity politics
people, and not of sufficient caliber to be involved in international diplomacy etc.
I see several commenters have mentioned dumb and stupid, as reasons, I agree, these nitwits
are way out of their element, and as to why they pick on Russia now, because they are naive enough
to think they can snub, insult, push with impunity, and they seem to be getting away with it.
But they hurt America, for having such low grade fools representing it. A bunch of cretinous egotists
who are run secretly by puppeteers, and backed up by brute force.
"But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"
I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being
offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.
What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?
Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In
Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April
2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What
else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president
and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the
START treaty.
There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false
flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup
against Putin.
Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted
to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk
the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull volcano) when perhaps
the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did
Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved.
Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in
GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned
to FSB.
Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then
a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video
of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen
again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against
him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between
the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind
of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad
giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.
One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama.
And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and
support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus
like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and
beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging
CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in
the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and
Moscow.
Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge
for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no
choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's
Russia was in the open.
In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated
media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were
staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the
ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later
Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned.
Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they
had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.
I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee
crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey.
Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany
doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian
crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy
the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse
the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare
Russia's engagement in Syria?
Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals,
border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then
Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military
or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?
In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely
he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took
place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance?
Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior
force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over
400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?
Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not
because of Russia's military strength.
I'm not a fan of assigning human motivations (like revenge) to institutions (like the US
establishment), but if I was trying to explain the recent escalations by the revenge motive,
then I would probably put sheltering Snowden front and center.
I don't think the crash in Smolensk is an issue; it has always been clear what happened
there, and it's nothing sinister. ,
In general outline, this is pretty close to how I see it. I remember realizing that ISIS/Daesh
was being used as an excuse to go into Syria. I don't think I realized immediately that
it was also just another proxy force used to overthrow Assad. So, typically, it was used
for two purposes, just as Al Qaeda has been used to target governments the US wants to weaken,
while also being blamed for attacks on western interests (9/11 being the most spectacular)
and used as an excuse for war. It's an elegantly multi-purpose operation. ,
So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are
there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?
I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes
sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something
of that sort:
I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions
in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's
mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign
affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration
with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll
CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced
Brzezinski before me.
He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break
Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in
the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the
neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian
military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced
into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia
and the Russians.
I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago,
Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled
the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So
you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians
who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.
Wally, I was just quoting what Francis Boyle had to say, not necessarily endorsing every
part of it. I don't know that much about Russian history. (Sorry, I don't know much about
anything.) As for the 6,000,000, yeah, it's very dubious, to put it mildly. I have serious
doubts about the official Holocaust story, but I haven't dug into it enough to make a strong
assertion about it one way or another. I'll just say the arguments against it are much stronger
than I ever expected before I started looking.
Agree with most reasons given for the current hyped hostility to Russia. Two extra points:
1. Trump publicly "aligned" himself with a more "open" policy towards Russia. When the leaks
occurred it made sense to the DNC to link & tar BOTH Trump & Russia with every evil under the
sun (two for price of one). And naturally the anti-trump forces continue with the farce.(Imagine
charging a president-elect with treason as some in the msm have done : mind-boggling !)
2. Hyping up the Russia-hate is handy for any future false flags, provocations etc to justify
retaliation.
There are many plausible reasons for the anti-Russian dialogue specifically the alleged vote
hack scenario but one cannot discount a very obvious one and that is the destroyed credibility
of the MSM in the mob's eyes.
How else to explain that they all walked in lockstep and some major ones were predicting a
Gorgon landslide and equally the statistical impossibility of a Trump win right up to election
night only to have major ostrich egg on their collective faces the next morning. "Hell hath no
fury like fake news outlets scorned" as Francis Bacon might say.
So now the implication would be that they were right (as always) but some evil elf in the Kremlin
changed the tally. Lame for sure but we are dealing with lamestream media. The top honchos know
that their days of influence are numbered. Only a collective ignorance can delay their demise.
A small point I wish to make taken from the body of the article is that whenever someone states
that a controversial document ( perhaps The Protocols) are a forgery, it is incumbent for someone
disagreeing to state "a forgery of what?" A forgery is not the same as a fake document created
out of whole cloth.
Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.
I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations,
never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.
I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems–or more
specifically their funders/puppetmasters–to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay
in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As
any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or
ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true,
because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.
These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The
stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious
hysteria.
The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal
that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling
against whatever whatever.
I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy
seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters.
It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its
leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected
election. I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the
U.S.--you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.
Good point though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime
in 2008.
He will have to frame any action within loud support for protecting America's security, but
it seems to me he must have ways of responding. It will be interesting to see if he uses them.
I am not all that familiar with the ins and outs of the top levels of the US security bureaucracy,
but here's the view of someone who is:
Surely this will have to be the first item on Trump's action list once in office? I mean, the
dangers to him of leaving these people in place are obvious.
Can SESes appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board? I also think
that SESes can be hired outside the normal civil service process -- one of the original purposes
of the program was to draw on outside talent.
GS-15s might not be all that useful -- they're more likely to be thinking of their careers
in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet). It's bureaucratic "inside baseball"
things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence
establishment.
* anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to
whip up some popular liberal support for it.
In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way
to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is
no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one
policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently
significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason
why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.
As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US
sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely
underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological
alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.
That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement
in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian
sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.
Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing
propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over
50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved
in 911!) What is one to do?
You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how
to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.
September 07, 2016 - September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up
of the Century "What Really Happened"?
WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives
in an obvious controlled demolition.
If those who were elected at the state level are real this would be my strategy.
Dec 30, 2015 Nullification in One Lesson
"When the federal government violates our rights, we're not just supposed to sit idly by
and wait for the federal government to stop itself."
https://youtu.be/k3L0U9EcP0Y
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors
must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." James Madison
But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility
in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in
Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps
an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries
in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and
perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the
Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack
staged by Turks and CIA).
No patriot wants any foreign power influencing a US election. Therefore, I'd like to see the
actions of China, Israel, Mexico and the EU investigated with vigor equal to that brought to bear
on Russia.
As I said, I've only a vague and general idea of how the US security bureaucracy works at the
top levels. I don't know how the various SIS arrangements relate to the wider SES, or what
the protections etc are, so I'm totally dependent on those who do know more for clues as to
how things might play out when Trump takes office.
Common sense alone, though, surely suggests some sort of thorough purge, doubtless dressed
up as reform and improving fitness for purpose, must happen now, no? Presumably that might
mean something of a turf war between the Executive and the Legislative branches, since the
old establishment is still strong in the latter.
Perhaps a few Executive Orders might be needed.
GS-15s might not be all that useful–they're more likely to be thinking of their careers
in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet).
That's a sensible point, but iirc there are limits on bringing in outsiders, at least as far
as SES is concerned.
It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of
so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment. It is obviously hostile to
him.
Indeed. I'm sure there are plenty of people advising him in detail on all this. For the rest
of us, it's a spectator sport, from a distance.
Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story
It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they
used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad
that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video
game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!
But that's just one of the useless "filler photos" (aka "artist's impression"), it's not
like someone claims having stood behind a Russian Hacker and photographed his screen.
Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing
propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over
50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved
in 911!) What is one to do?
You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how
to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.
September 07, 2016 – September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of
the Century "What Really Happened"?
WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in
an obvious controlled demolition.
This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.
Of course, as we have clearly seen over the years, the intelligence agencies of all states
attempt to covertly gather sensitive information about each other – indeed, even when they are
not antagonists. Consider the US hacking of Angela Merkel's phone or Israel's spies Jonathan Pollard
and Lawrence Franklin.
Those in possession of state secrets have an obligation to secure them and, if they are penetrated,
the blame is to them alone. The DNC and Podesta emails were not even state secret material either!
Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will
haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is
yet another sign of her mental instability.
I saw yesterday that the fact of the Russians celebrating Trump's victory was taken as further
proof of their complicity in Hillary's downfall – how could they possibly be expected to behave
otherwise? Give me a break!
the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president
but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign
relations
Not necessarily. He may be able to discredit their narrative, and to replace it with his own narrative.
After all, he's done plenty of that during the campaign... And this time he'll have the 'bully
pulpit', so it should be easier....
Yes. The chutzpah patrol only knows how to double down / pick up nickels in front of a steamroller.
That strategy looks fine right up until it blows up completely. It could easily happen that they
beat Trump. It could also easily happen that they blow themselves up.
Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and
election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in
which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump
by narrow margins.
That is not quite true, Hillary pretended to be above it all, and used 'Green Party' candidate
Jill Stein as a proxy.
Which raises its own questions.
who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.
Again, not true, she 'crowd-sourced' the money, perhaps a small portion of the cash was
left over from Stein's own campaign.
Raising so much so quickly indicates a plutocratic contribution.
the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.
It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific
analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.
The Americans came up with the 'African Green monkey' bullshit, claimed to have found earlier
cases in Africa, there are many auto-immune-system collapse disorders, there has never been
any convincing evidence for the claimed (and very few) earlier cases of auto-immune deficiency
found in old colonial health records, and claimed to be evidence of an Africa origin of AIDs,
having been related to HIV.
The fact is, patient zero and all of the early cases were in San Francisco, Los Angeles,
and the Fire Island scene in Noo Yawk. Wikipedia even misidentifies the real patient zero,
with some spreader of the disease that they say was patient O.
I am never part of those scenes, often bullied as straight, as often treated nicely as accepting,
although I have had good friends who were same-sex lovers, but the phenomenom of interpretation
of HIV-AIDS, as opposed to other auto-immune syndromes, it has really become wild propaganda.
Patient zero was certainly a homosexual Nord-Amerique man.
Propaganda to divert people's attention from this is very strong, another example of the
disconnection between pre-mass-'net paper info and now.
I do not want to write at length on this, now, but am making a very good case.
Your article is alright, but not very good, my comments before the AIDs-related ones may
assist you to write a little better.
the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes
back to Tsarist times."
No shit Sherlock? I goes way farther back than that, I read the rest of the article, wow,
a dim bulb struggling to be bright. You may get there, writing is not all bad.
> the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.
It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific
analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.
That made no sense in the 80s and makes no sense today.
The only "development" of a virus that had happened at that time was the development
of the spanish flu in the trenches of WWI (and we still don't know how that worked, really).
Hell, most of the stuff related to retroviruses still had to be written. Gallo was checking
out Leukemia-causing retrovirus. Remember the grainy, bad photos that the Institut Pasteur
published of "LAV"? Yeah. Grainy. That was the kind of tech back then.
At some point wrong structure diagrams appeared in Scientific American and Nature. PCR
was in its infancy. Computers were basically useless for deep data crunching. "Developing
a virus" was just not possible. Germans coming up with fully functional ICBMs in 1914 sounds
more likely.
" but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to
the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be
when things really started heating up."
EXACTLY. That began with the frenzy over "Will gay Olympians be safe in Sochi?" nonsense
in US Big Media. Also when Code Pink and progressive media (aka Big Media's little brother)
got all hot and bothered about Pussy Riot. (Did Vice News even understand the reference
to chickens at the end of this video?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc Pussy Riot Gets Whipped in Sochi
Plus the obligatory slandering of Sochi facilities construction. All spite and sour grapes
over Syria.
As for "...the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle" that would be Fucktoria Nuland, et
al. Plenty of them find it useful to nurse their Russia hatred.
As a footnote–and I wish could remember his name– but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy
on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had
"proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release
the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right!
"Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.[6]"
There are so many things that are wrong with the country . Some are transients some are less
important and some could be brushed aside as angry response from the loser but also a fundamental
shift could be seen in the dogged persuasion of the stupidities and visceral attachment to the
absurd despite the inconsistencies,contradictions,and presence of collectively motivated misrepresentation
,among both party's loyal supporters . These are loyal to party irrespective of the political
social economic faiths and known behaviors of the candidates . Because they have sunk their own
daily existential identities with that of a party, they find it difficult to move away from any
party position . It is a religion and the arguments and the information are fixed and formatted
to suit that unidirectional unyielding emotional intellectual existence . but it produces inertia
, extinguishes curiosity, stifles the resistance ,reinforces the stagnation , and eventually reduces
the power of the intellectual forces to guide the debate and the fate of the country. It does
so by bringing out and giving prominence to the most vocal sentimental ignorant intellectually
passive segment who dislike more intellectually inquisitive challenging neutral minded citizen
and supporters with openness to new possibilities and ideas .
Nuances don't matter . Blind belief becomes synonymous with resolve and steadfastness .
Bush Cheney destroyed the GOP Now Clinton is doing same with ample help from those whose interests
she would serve best .( It is doubtful if Bush or Cruz or Huckabee or Graham or Rubio were the
winner, we would be seeing this remonstration . So basically people are being schooled to follow
certain official positions and lines Those positions are also the positions of the elite irrespective
of the party affiliation .Party works for the elite that roam across the aisle . In this situation
, the presence of thinking and discerning minds pose a risk . The zeitgeist is best preserved
by the vocal assertive and effective presence of the sheeple dyed in different colors who would
fight for the preservation of the colors and for nothing else .
Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization
is digging its own grave . Even if it doesn't in this particular route , the route that is being
offered through stifling of any logical rational openness ,suppression of any kind of questioning
and insistence on one kind of idea,value, and analysis leads to the same fate .
Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization
is digging its own grave .
The new left vs right, or a new kind of opposition politics based less on ''issues'', and more
on what kind of Bull shit you are vulnerable to. The various Catapulted Propogandar.
Cartoon images, or more realistic stuff? Not that cartoons need to be less insightful than
movies.
But, what I am gett'n at: politics between the two sides of the Bell Curve, more and more.
Yellow cake story No.2 ? Probably he implies that the release of Stuxnet, Flame and similar worms was responsible.
What they can hide after Snowden revelations? The fact that they collect all inbound and outbound
traffic ?
One recurring lament throughout the theatrically dramatic campaign involving reports and emotional
appeals by US intelligence agencies such as the CIA (whose primary function is the creation of disinformation)
to ordinary Americans, that Russia had "hacked the US presidential election" is that for all the
bluster and "conviction", there has been zero evidence.
And, as it turns out, there won't be any, because according to the US State Department, US intelligence
agencies were right to not reveal evidence of their proof that Russia interfered in US elections,
and comparisons with intelligence reports that Iraq had WMDs were not relevant in the current year.
Asked by RT's Gayane Chichakyan if Friday's public intelligence report should have contained any
proof of Russian intervention, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that
no one should be surprised
that US intelligence agencies were keeping evidence secret in order to protect sources and methods.
"Most American people understand that they have the responsibility to protect their sources and
methods," Kirby said, adding it would be "irresponsible" to do otherwise. Actually, with the Iraq
WMD fiasco strill fresh in "American people's" minds, it is irresponsible to think most Americans
are still naive idiots who will believe whatever the "intelligence agencies" will tell them.
... ... ...
When Chichakyan brought up the 2003 intelligence assessment on the
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – invoked by the Bush administration to justify the US invasion
and occupation of that country – Kirby said the comparison was irrelevant, since that was a long
time ago.
"We have moved on. We have learned a lot from those mistakes," he said.
Ironically, somehow much of America ended up with the opposite conclusion.
Bunghole
-> 07564111
•Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM
Didn't State claim Ambassador Stevens was killed over a youtube video?
... ... ...
I agree with Kirby unreservedly when he stated: 'I think, er... well, I don't think...'
These blind fools cannot fathom that an increasing number of others don't simply regurgitate
the narrative thoughtlessly. We apply rational thought, particularly in considering what the
implications are to the innocents e.g. 500,000 dead civilians in Iraq.
It's good in a way as it simply brings society closer to the demise of this evil sooner.
Unfortunately this may require us passing through a period of intense turmoil, upheaval, pain
and suffering.
As Jim Morrison said:
'they've got the guns, but we got the numbers... TAKING OVER... C'MON'
philipat -> BullyBearish
•Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM
So let me see if I get this straight. Either, there IS no evidence, OR the US is doing
precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of? Neither is an attractive admission
by .gov if the propaganda is to be effective. Repeat after me, it was the Russians......
07564111 -> philipat
•Jan 9, 2017 10:12 PM
OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of?
"Trust us, we know best."
- Anonymous Intelligence Official (speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not
authorized to make statements).
Reaper
•Jan 9, 2017 9:53 PM
We ought thank Putin for revealing the corruption of Clinton, if he truly did it. Intel
presents an argument for fools. If Putin likes chocolate, should we hate it? The logical
fallacy: guilt by association.
"... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence. ..."
"... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
"... In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden. ..."
"... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in
its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's
lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.
For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical
analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference
by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial
evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that
the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."
There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig
Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there
were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly
a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.
In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's
Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.
However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding
the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward
Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.
"It took me a long time to discover that the key thing in acting is honesty. Once you know how
to fake that, you've got it made." –Actor in Peyton Place, 1970
So the news is like
sincerity (and honesty)
? Or not? Interestingly, the epigraph comes from the start of the neoliberal dispensation, but
let's not go down a rathole of meta. Or rather, let's go down another rathole of meta by quoting
defeated Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who seems to have been the (self-infected) Patient
Zero for the "fake news" moral panic when
she spoke these words ( C-SPAN )
at the unveiling of Harry Reid's portrait, December 8, 2016:
[CLINTON:] Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans,
Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, especially those who serve in our Congress: the
epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past
year . It's now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences
. This isn't about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people
just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.
IIt's a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making
its way through Congress to boost the government's response to foreign propaganda ,
and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news
. It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up
to protect our democracy and innocent lives."
(Presumably that "bipartisan" - dread word - legislation was the "Countering Foreign Propaganda
and Disinformation Act,"
discussed at NC in detail
here .) Parsing this verbiage, we find it unusually sloppy and dishonest, even for Clinton. What,
for example, is the distinction between "malicious fake news" and "so-called fake news"? Is sincerely
meant (not "malicious") and/or genuine (not "so-called") fake news not really fake? And how is it
that we start with "false propaganda" and end with "foreign propaganda"? Obviously, whatever "danger"
is to be "addressed" can't be from "fake news" as such, since conceptually there's no there there.
Democrat
establishment lapdog Paul Krugman makes Clinton's agenda more clear:
Still, none of this would work without the complicity of the news media. And I'm not talking
about "fake news," as big a problem as that is becoming; I'm talking about respectable, mainstream
news coverage.
So, "fake news" just doesn't happen in "respectable, mainstream news" outlets (showing Yves was
quite right to
cite to independent, alternative media , like Naked Capitalism, as being under the blame cannons).
But Krugman's vulgar institutionalism gets us no forrader on "fake news" conceptually, does it? Here's
the best taxonomy of "fake news" that I've been able to find. From Matthew E. Kahn's blog, Environmental
and Urban Economics,
"The Economics of Fake News":
There are four cases to consider.
Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the National
Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.
Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story is
true.
Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is true.
Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story
is false.
"Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic
element. This is just Tiebout sorting[1] in ideological space.
Tellingly, the
articles listed at the Snopes "fake news" tag (e.g., "Did a Man Lock His Daughter in a Cage for
Overusing a Snapchat Filter?" [FALSE]) fall primarily into Case #1 (that is, no social consequence,
since both supplier and demander know the fake news is fake). And
the "malicious" "foreign" WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer Democrat email leaks are Case #3:
The supplier believes the story is true, and the demander believes the story is true.[2]. Case #4
(the supplier believes the story is true, and the demander believes the story is false) may end up
applying to us all,
if current trends continue , but again, let's not go down the rathole.
So the interesting case is Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes
the story is true. And the nice thing about Kahn's taxonomy is that it abstracts away from institutions,
so we don't have to accept Krugman's silly, and self-serving, notion that "mainstream publications"
don't produce "fake news." Here's the definition of "fake" from my Oxford English Dictionary:
fake [adjective & noun(2)] /feɪk/ Orig. slang. l18. [ORIGIN: Rel. to fake verb2.] A. adjective.
Spurious, counterfeit, sham. l18. Glasgow Herald Fake whisky..the symptoms following consumption
are similar to those of gastric poisoning.
I mean, come on. Nobody ever said that alternative, independent, small distilleries are the only
institutions that every produced fake whiskey, right?
Before I dig more deeply into Case #2, I'd like to introduce an additional case:
Case #5: The supplier knows the story is true, but the demander knows nothing about it at all
(This introduces a pleasing element of informational asymmetry into Kahn's model, enabling it
to conform more closely to the real world. The example I have in mind comes from Operative K's employer,
the New York Times.
From
FAIR :
By any standard, the
New York Times ' story of
December 16 was a blockbuster: Reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that following
the September 11 attacks, the
Bush administration initiated warrantless wiretaps on hundreds of people within the U.S.–including
U.S. citizens–even though a federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, expressly
forbids the government from doing so. This program was legal only if one accepts the administration's
contention that the executive branch has essentially unlimited powers during "wartime" (even though
Congress has not declared war).
The Times story would be an outstanding example of how the First Amendment works to protect
liberty–were it not for the ninth paragraph:
The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could
jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under
scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper
delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration
officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
The reasoning is absurd on its face. As Times executive editor Bill Keller noted in a
statement released
on December 16 explaining his decision to publish the story, "The fact that the government eavesdrops
on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known." But this was as obvious a year ago
as it is today. As for the government's spying being "jeopardized," placing illegal and unconstitutional
programs in jeopardy is the whole point of the First Amendment ( Extra! Update ,
12/05
).
But Keller's statement revealed that the Times does not see itself as competent to watch out
for illegal government activity. In explaining the delay, Keller stated that the administration
had "assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that
satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." Keller went on to say
that "it is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or
civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions
loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."
In other words, Keller believes it is the Times ' "place" to accept
officials' own evaluation of the legality of their behavior.
What FAIR delicately omits to mention is that the Times had and then
spiked the story
before election 2004 , and therefore suppressing it until Bush was safely elected might
well have affected the (very close) Presidential race, which everybody is so concerned that fake
news does, right?
Now, is Case #5 - suppressed news - really news ? I would argue that is it is. The
replaced pages in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia were surely part of that Encyclopedia, and in
less well-regulated polities than our own, censored news is simply printed as blank columns:
Back to Case #2, which I'd argue should be refined, again through the introduction of information
asymmetry. On the supplier side, we need to introduce the possiblity of delusion as opposed to malevolence,
and on the demander side, "Cassandras" (a minority) as opposed to believers (the great majority)[3].
The case study I have in mind is Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the case of the Iraq War.
I remember the WMD case of fake news - news that is "spurious, counterfeit, sham" as the OED has
it - well, because it happened in my very first year of blogging, in 2003. (Cue the "I'm so old,
I remember ______"
snowclone
jokes.) The justifications for Saddam's WMDs came thick and fast: The aluminum tubes, the white
powders, the yellowcake uranium, the mobile biological laboratories, the drones, the atropine, the
"we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." As soon as one story was debunked - which
foul-mouthed bloggers of the left using open sources could do quite easily, within hours - another
story would pop up.
Only later did we learn that it didn't just feel like playing whack-a-mole; it was playing
whack-a-mole; The Bush White House was planting stories in the press (through a process, for those
who came in late, very similar to what the Clinton campaign used, as shown in the Wikileaks Podesta
email dump).
[GARDINER:]As the war unfolded, I became increasingly uneasy about what was being reported
out of the White House, Pentagon and Central Command. I was hearing things that just did not make
sense with what I knew and what my intuition was telling me. I began tracking some of the stories.
It was just a matter of going over what we were told and connecting that with the truth as it
emerged later.
There is absolutely no question that the White House and the Pentagon participated in an effort
to market the military option. The truth did not make any difference to that campaign. To call
it fixing is to miss the more profound point. It was a campaign to influence. It involved creating
false stories; it involved exaggerating; it involved manipulating the numbers of stories that
were released; it involved a major campaign to attack those who disagreed with the military option.
It included all the techniques those who ran the marketing effort had learned in political campaigns.
We [know] the WMD story fairly well. We know the story of the uranium from Niger. We know about
the aluminum tubes that were not for uranium enrichment. We know the biological labs Powell showed
to the UN did not exist.
[ZEESE:] Is the media being fooled by the Administration or is it complicit in this effort
to misinform the public?
[GARDINER:]The media have been fooled. They have been lazy. They have lost sight of the historic
calling of journalism. Journalists have been replaced on television by cheerleaders.
[ZEESE:] How much did this campaign of misinformation cost?
[GARDINER:] Tough question, Kevin. I don't think it possible to get a total handle on the effort.
I have read one estimate that put the marketing at $200 million. That cost is trivial, however,
to the collateral damage that has been done to democracy.
And on the demand side, some may actually have believed their own bullshit. Former White House
insider
Richard Clarke , interviewed in 2004:
[GUARDIAN]: Do you believe the administration believed the intelligence on Iraqi WMD?
[RICE:] We all believed the intelligence was strong. It wasn't just a problem with
intelligence in the United States, it was an intelligence problem worldwide. Services across the
world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
So, give Rice and Clarke the benefit of the doubt, and put them in the delusional bucket on the
supplier side, as opposed to the malevolent bucket. That said, those in the malevolent bucket were
the drivers supporting policy, as we knew (
in 2005 ) from The Downing Street
Memo. Quoting it :
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
.C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military
action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified
by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy . The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing
material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath
after military action.
Gardiner's estimate of $200 million would buy rather a lot of "fixed" facts, eh? Even at Beltway
rates.
* * *
So that's my walk on memory lane on fake news. The utter effrontery of Clinton, and her lapdog,
yammering about fake news from
Macedonian teenagers on social media, after fake news from the mainstream press - very much including
the Times' own infamous Judy Miller - helped foment the Iraq War just boggles the mind. And all those
faraway brown people blown to pink mist make Clinton's "lives are at risk" especially nauseating.
I'm gobsmacked by the "fake news" moral panic, hornswoggled, beyond flummoxed. Or I would be, if
only Clinton blaming fake news for her loss weren't just another example of Democrats never holding
themselves responsible for anything.
Oh, and at some point I should propose some solutions. Obviously, the whole fact-checking paradigm
is wrong; I'm so old I remember when we had editors and reporters to do that, so returning to those
days would be a start, at least. So, whatever public policy it would take to get more local newspapers
going again is something we should think about. We should also think about breaking up ginormous
media monopolies; after all, epidemics spread more easily in a monoculture. And then there's Facebook;
maybe they shouldn't be in the algorithmic newsfeed business at all; after all, the most reliable
parts of a program are the ones that aren't there. And Facebook, too, is an enormous monopoly. Perhaps
there should be more power centers in social media, as well. Just some thoughts.[5] Readers?
NOTE
Bud from legal insists that I say this post solely represents the views of "Lambert Strether,"
and does not represent the views of Naked Capitalism.
[3] Leaving aside, again, the dystopia where demanders believe all stories are false.
[4] Gardiner's paper,
"Truth from These
Podia," suffers from serious link rot. And so we lose our history.
[5] Also, some kind soul should fund deliberative debate in the schools and for adults at the
rate of, oh, $10 million a year or so. It would't take much. I guarantee we'd see improvement in
discourse in as little as three years, as varsity debaters came up and started to show the critical
thinking skills they gained at the podium in public policy discussion. Incidentally, historically
black colleges and universities have done very well recently in debate, so do let's make sure all
the debate money doesn't go to the already credentialed burbclaves, mkay?
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
The whole "fake news" narrative is not about "fake news," or propaganda, or agitprop.
It is about taking control away from, and by implication devaluing the analysis, of these who
debunk the propaganda, or agitprop from the "legitimate (aka: fake official)" news outlets. Examples
of this are Naked Capitalism, Ian Welsh, Marcy Wheeler and Zero Hedge.
It is both a monopolistic action of the "legitimate (aka: fake official)" news outlets, and
the powers in Washington, enabling this monopolistic behavior for both parties self interest.
This comment solely represents the views of "ME" and does not represent the views of anyone
else. (OK Bud?)
The fake news chant is just an addition to the Russia, Russia, Russia bs. The goal is always
delegitimizing any voice other than far right capitalists and war mongers. Media has collapsed/flipped.
The media being promoted as legitimate is outright lies and never ending propaganda. They occasionally
slip in facts but they are meaningless to the discussion. The alternative sites are the only ones
attempting to distribute facts and discuss issues based on facts.
I won't be surprised to see legitimate news sites blocked from accessing ad revenue and payment
systems. No ads, no facebook, no twitter, no paypal for those deemed to be disseminating facts.
A friend of my mine stated the other day, "Don't mistake gaslighting for a genuine concern
that you might, in fact, be crazy."
To which I replied:
"The age of modern advertisement (think Mad Men) was kicked off by behavioral psychology professor
John B. Watson who is most popularly known for the "Baby Albert" experiments. What is not widely
known is that he was kicked out of John Hopkins for having an affair with his research assistant
shortly after said experiments. Where did he take his talents? You guessed it: Advertising - where
he popularized the notion of selling "sex appeal" rather than a product. In mu opinion, the rest
the western world's economic and political history, then, are all "gaslighting" footnotes to the
recently discovered ability to psychologically manipulate people to create demand where there
was none previously."
My point being, it is worth considering the impact media creating ideological demand where
there was none before.
This problem is so old it's ludicrous. They're talking about it like it was just discovered!
LOL.
I think these quotes are true, but I didn't know Thomas Jefferson and I did not carry on a
literary correspondence with him. It would have been a pleasure! Despite his flaws. He was a man
of his time, but a brilliant one.
Here are some more Thomas Jefferson quotes about newspapers. I think he would have been in
the peanut gallery railing at the mainstream media just like the rest of us.
#2 below is my favorite "the violence and malignity of party spirit" Whoa!:
1. "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch
as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." ~Thomas
Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225
2. "I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the
vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them These ordure's are rapidly depraving
the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb
on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief
This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." ~Thomas
Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46
3. "As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." Thomas Jefferson
to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118
4."Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." ~Thomas Jefferson
to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179
5. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious
by being put into that polluted vehicle."
source: http://www.fourwinds.com (I
Googled a string of words about Jefferson and newspapers, since I knew of his opinion there.)
I grew up in Detroit during the Vietnam war. In Detroit you could listen to the news from Canada
and hear the elements of Propaganda in the US news (or fake news to use the modern term). It was
as if two different wars were happening depending on which side of the river the news was broadcast
from. Back then from the US news perspective Pravda was one big sheet of fake news (propaganda)
. Back then you could also buy a shortwave radio and listen to the BBC as well as Radio Moscow
(which had strong signals in the US).
So back then one had to learn to take all news with a very large grain of salt because the folks
putting the news together influenced how news was reported. It is just now that it appears that
younger generations have tumbled to the fact that news organizations pursue a point of view and
report news skewed to support that point of view.
For another example back then the Socialist workers party had a newspaper that to the US mainstream
point of view was propaganda,but from their point of view was the truth.
In large part this is also why the Framers put together a United States Republic, "wherein
the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
Democracy was too susceptible so reliance was placed on the two-house, separately elected sources,
to provide thoughtful discourse via indpendent legislators. Ideally these people were to be thoughtful
people who tried.
This too has become a department-of-thought (the others are judicial and executive) that is
lacking thought, well at least in one party, the one that also denies scientific fact and believes
we can not govern ourselves because we are the problem. But their richtung is clear, no need to
think too much about how to vote.
The Framers were the very same class of idle oligarchs that we are attempting to do battle
with today. Jeremy Belknap's famous Supplication, that we should submit to the "enlightened" (i.e.
freed from having to actually work to the order of others) rule of liberal dispensationalist Rescuers,
is a bipartisan stipulation.
Surely you didn't forget Hamilton Electors so quickly? Or Becky Fischer interviewed in Jesus
Camp : "excuse me, but we have the truth!" Or which class and which interests are in fact
running the press, and at whose interests' expense? People who vend noble lies klike liberalism
or Belknap's learned helplessness tend to be discredited rather quickly.
The disastrous world that Hillary built is coming apart. She said in the 90s that she saw no
way to save labor and prevent offshoring and being killed by cheap imports: "There's just no way
to stop it." She came from the left and became the biggest free marketeer there ever was. Yet,
her behavior has been so pious. She, as much as any tool who ever graced the halls of Washington
DC, is to blame for shamelessly securing her own position by destroying the country. While the
rest of us were lamenting the disappearance of truth, the neoliberals were attacking that idealism
with a term coined by Steve Colbert: "truthiness" and everybody had a good chuckle until the truthiness
was on the other foot – now they demand an end to "fake news". What about just tolerating all
the "fakiness" And the "newsiness" with a fake smile? C'mon Hill, I know you can do it.
As one by one, well known lefty blog aggregators got all 'et up by David Brock's CTR, it was
difficult to miss their trolls & sock-puppets were all using Rick Berman's playbook
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/24/1519540/-Paid-Clinton-Troll-Speaks-out-I-was-aghast-at-what-I-saw
Dissidents were entitled, gullible. basement-dwelling millennial, or misogynistic, racist
agents provocateurs, spreading discordant enemy agitprop. They used Hill + Knowlton Strategies'
decades-old buzz-words from tobacco, asbestos, fracking & bio-engineering scams, to discredit
anybody questioning Debbie, Robby and John's stomping down loyal, lifelong Keynesian Democrats
and handing the presidency to Trump, the states to ALEC and Judiciary, regulatory agencies & Congress
to leering, smirking, up-front drooling Fascists.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/06/resistance-2/
Another aspect of this is the obfuscation of true news. An example of this is the news blackout
and dismissal of any significance pertaining to the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, fallout, and
continuing emissions of dangerous radioactive isotopes into the environment. This is an institutionalized
conspiracy borne of complacency and self interest.
The worst part of this is there are typically no judgments or consequences against the perpetrators
of false information that is explicitly used to gain support for and acquiescence to policies
that result in criminal actions and grave harm - i.e. war, exploitation & impoverishment, mass
displacement, confiscation of resources, deleterious pollution & ecocide, etc. The justice system
is as irredeemably corrupt as the rest of the political system.
This lucky coincidence is from the UC Press. They have a blog about different books they put
out. And this one's relevant and timely. There is a brief overview of Watergate and The Kennedy/Nixon
TV debates of 1960 and the ongoing myths surrounding them.
Debunking Media Myths, Those Prominent Cases of Fake News
by W. Joseph Campbell, author of 'Getting It Wrong: Debunking the Greatest Myths in American
Journalism'.
"The mainstream media's recent angst and hand-wringing about a surge of "fake news" has tended
to ignore that the media themselves have often been purveyors of bogus tales and dubious interpretations.
"Fake news" has plenty of antecedents in mainstream media - several cases of which are documented
in my book, Getting It Wrong, a new, expanded edition of which was published recently.
The book examines and debunks media-driven myths, which are well-known stories about and/or
by the news media that are widely believed and often retold but which, under scrutiny, dissolve
as false or wildly exaggerated. Think of them as prominent cases of "fake news" that have masqueraded
as a fact for years. Decades, even."
Don't forget that the entertainment divisions all of MSM's parent companies rely on quid pro
quo "fake reviews" to juice positive buzz for movies/TV series.
And often those fake reviews are spun as real news.
Just checking, since I took a
crack at the Reuters disclaimer, is the Bud from legal thing irony? 'Cause I cain't tell no
more.
'Cause if that's the case, that's a Case-1. And that means NC is a purveyor of fake news.
But Wait! Is it weasel-words to say 'does not represent the views of (institution)'? Where
is the agency? The DNC has a platform with explicit, well what are they, the DNC says 'political
rhetoric' as opposed to actual positions. Wouldn't it be better to say 'the views of the owners
of' or 'the editors of'? But are you then saying that Yves does not share this view? Or are you
an editor and don't agree with yourself? Well, you get the idea.
Anyway, I'd say let's kill all the lawyers, but let's leave legal Bud alone.
One comment I would make about the WMD reporting was that the international press, including
some British papers, were debunking the propaganda. It was as if America and the rest of the world
were in separate realities. Many Americans were reading the Guardian to obtain independent news.
The WMD claims of the Bush administration were debunked in congressional speeches, but the pro-war
lawmakers didn't seem to care.
That's what's scary now. The pro war legislators don't seem to care now as well. Last time,
it was Iraq, no push over, but not "really" dangerous. Now, it's Russia, which is truly dangerous.
There's a significant difference between IEDs and ICBMs.
Seems to me that enforcement of existing Anti-trust law would go a long way in remedying the
blob opinion that characterizes MSM reporting. I'm no neoliberal but competition law forces competition
and from competition comes diversity in media strategy, reporting and publishing.
Sorry I said competition three times. I tend to harp on this subject since I was at the center
of some pretty tough Anti-trust fights back in the day when the DOJ did its job.
" put them in the delusional bucket on the supplier side, as opposed to the malevolent bucket."
1) Could someone, theoretically, be put in both buckets?
The answer to question 1) is quantum based. Whichever bucket you look in, there "they" are.
I suspect the answer to question 2) is also quantum based. Schrodingers Blue Suede Shoes anyone?
"News" – aka storytelling/myth making about "real" recent events – has always been "fake" to
some degree or another. The question is, to what degree? However, I doubt most of any political
stripe would contest the fact that lately it's become simply out of control. Welcome to the "information
age!"
Does the following scenario: "The supplier knows the story is true, but the demander wants
to believe it's true/false" falls under the scenario of "The supplier knows the story is true,
but the demander knows nothing about it at all"
Or how about: "The supplier wants to believe the story is true, and the demander wants to believe
it's true"? Sounds a bit like religion (probably not "fake news").
But this is right in line with Hillary Clinton's "public vs. private" position claims. It's
okay to be dishonest about it because intervening to overthrow Assad is obviously "the greater
good" just as overthrowing Gaddafi "we came we saw he died ha ha ha!" was a good idea. Unintended
consequences? We'll just cook up some more propaganda to make it look like it's all going well.
Image matters, not substance. If we tell everyone we're going to win the election, then we're
sure to win the election; we just have to believe, get everyone on message, tell the right story.
. .
Reminds me of a William Gibson quote from Neuromancer: "I mean, these guys are all batshit in here, like they got luminous messages scrawled across
the inside of their foreheads or something."
Bud from legal insists that I say this post solely represents the views of "Lambert Strether,"
and does not represent the views of Naked Capitalism.
OK, but is Bud part of the problem or part of the solution? Does Naked Capitalism have a view?
I thought NC was a forum of views, not a person or a corporation-"person" (and so what if it was).
So why does Bud need you to say that? What good or bad thing does this enable or prevent
because you have now followed Bud's advice?
Just curious I guess. I took the time to read it, so now I'd like to know why I did.
Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of
the Russian parliament's upper house, added fuel to the fire, saying the U.S.
intelligence community made unfounded allegations of Russia-sponsored hacker attacks, in
favor of the outgoing US presidential administration and made a fool of itself.
Speaking to
RIA Novosti
,
the senator said that the allegations "simply make no sense. The main reason is that no
one can interfere with the electoral process in such country as the United States," he
pointed out. "Acting in favor of the outgoing presidential administration, the US
intelligence community laid itself open to ridicule."
Other Russians agreed such as Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a
state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in
the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence
community's accusations. "Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my
show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This
is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United
States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by
solid evidence. Alexey Kovalyov, a Russian journalist who has followed and frequently
criticized RT, said he was aghast that the report had given so much attention to the
television station. "I do have a beef with RT and their chief," Mr. Kovalyov wrote in a
social media post, "But they are not your nemesis, America. Please chill."
The Kremlin, which has in the past repeatedly denied any role in the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer system, had no immediate response to the
declassified report. Putin instead made a show of business as usual, attending a church
service to mark the start of Orthodox Christmas.
His composure was understandable because as the NYT again remarkably notes, "
The
report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly
through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and
undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow's
long record of trying to influence America's political system
."
In other words, speculation and innuendo. Curiously, the NYT's bashing of the report
continued:
The public report did not include evidence on the sources and methods used to
collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates that intelligence
officials said was in a classified version.
The NYT also cited Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian intelligence agencies at the
Institute of International Relations in Prague, who said he was skeptical of the
accusation that Putin had ordered the hacking. All the same, he added, Russian spies,
like their Soviet predecessors, "don't just collect information but try to assert
influence." United States intelligence operatives, he said, have often done the same
thing but the Russians, convinced that the United States orchestrated protests in
Ukraine in 2014 that toppled the pro-Moscow president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, and other
popular uprisings in former Soviet lands, "have a more aggressive approach to meddling
in other people's politics."
The NYT continued: "Galeotti, the intelligence expert in Prague, cautioned that this
mission to influence foreign politics was not a uniquely Russian
phenomenon but
had also been embraced in the past by the CIA, which, in the 1950s, sought to shape
and subvert politics in countries like Iran and Guatemala
."
Actually, and this is the real punchline, there is an
entire Wikipedia page dedicated
to US involvement in overthrowing foreign regimes.
Here are
just the examples
since World War II (* indicates successful ouster of a
government)
China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *
Perhaps the reasons behind the rushed, and frankly humiliating, report is that US
intelligence was scrambling to respond to the first ever case of someone
doing to it
what the US had done to the rest of the world for decades
without any fear of retaliation.
As for Galeotti, he said the United States intelligence report on Russian meddling in
the November election had gone too far in projecting Cold War attitudes onto today's
reality.
He said it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Putin had from the start
conducted "a Machiavellian conspiracy" aimed at bringing Mr. Trump to power.
More likely, he added, was that Mr. Putin was not involved or even informed about
initial efforts to hack into the D.N.C. computer system but, informed after the fact
about what had been done, "decided to act opportunistically" and make use of the
hacker's harvest of emails to try to tilt the election.
His conclusion:
"I don't think the Russians believed for a minute that Trump
could really be elected,"
Galeotti said.
"They were convinced that U.S.
elites would ensure that one of their own would win. They thought they had a chance to
do a bit of mischief but I think they were amazed, even aghast, at what happened.
"
Why? Here is perhaps the biggest reason, also known as the
real fake news
courtesy of
Reuters
...
Geez, I was 13 and also saw it with my parents at "the movies".
You old fart. :-)
BTW, if your handle has anything to do with
the book, I've read
Confederacy of Dunces
3 times. You
seem like the kind of person who would like that book, if you
don't mind me saying,er...just sayin' or whatever they fucking
say these days.
The problem in the 2016 election was that the
establishment had gotten so arrogant that it didn't even
bother to hide the glaring across-the-board favouritism
lavished on Hillary Clinton...
The American people are the one who saw an opportunity
to be mischievous and boy did they reach for it.
The problem with our "intelligence" ( really ??)
agencies is the fact that their collective IQ has been
reduced to match Obozo's IQ (which ain't too high...);
hence, the recently witnessed Jerry Springer kind of
shit show...
I actually experienced the opposite, as my very first college class
featured a history professor who told us the real meat behind the writing
of the Constitution (language written to protect white male land owners,
etc.). From then on I have had my eyes open...but of course, that was
1981. Another world entirely.
but they used to tell us Americans are
stupid, socially disconnected, they don't care about their parents and are
obsessed with money. Also that American education sucks
There's nothing "progressive" about Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama,
just as there was nothing "conservative" about George W Bush or Mitt
Romney. Millions of "leftists" stayed home on Nov. 8, which is why
Hillary lost. Why are you trying to divide the American people?
It's been 70 years coming. The CIA was created in the Truman
Administration, though it was Eisenhower who let it get truly out of control
under Allen Dulles.
1. So, when will Hillary and Debbie Wassername-Schultz be charged with
interfering in "our democracy"? The emails were not forged, they were
authentic.
2. Scott Foval & Robert Creamer hiring mentally deficient homeless
people to incite riots...any charges forthcoming...LowRenta? ;-)
At a time when "federal law enforcement" (such as it is...lol) is
investigating the Clinton Foundation for what can only be called
BRIBERY & CORRUPTION
...the MSM Fake News agencies are oddly
silent on the fate of Eric Braverman aren't they?
No op-eds. No
"journalistic curiosity" standing behind their shredded shield of
"freedom of the press". Saying. Nothing. Seeing. Nothing. Leading to moar
lack of their journalistic integrity which they bemoaningly write
about...endlessly...in op-eds. No Bernsteins & Woodwards in sight. Not
even one.
I started paying attention to TV news in the early 60s and remember
Walter Cronkite going on about the Viet Nam War and the family was all
ears because my brother got drafted and I would be up in a few years.
What Cronkite said we agreed with because we literally had skin in the
game and we were still hurting from losses from the Korean War. Now
they are saying the newscasters back then were full of shit and were
shaping people's opinions. You never heard about any victories, just a
lot of negativity and hopelessness accompanied by grisly but expertly
edited war footage. No wonder people took drugs.
Having said that,
what we got now is a hundred times worse and your opinion of today's
press and media is pretty much what I think too. Well said.
Exactly. This Clownshow of Obama and the CIA is making me sick. Illustrates
why our country is in such bad shape. Morons and an affirmative action
Whitehouse and every other shit ass who rode the shortbus are running the
country.
Prosecute the real interferers and then let the War Crimes trials
begin !!!
"... I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce. ..."
"... talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds. ..."
"... Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time. ..."
"... Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth. ..."
"... Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB? ..."
Well, that's capitalism. NBC News is a a division of Comcast, a large capitalist firm. They are
in the business of making money by attracting consumer/viewer eyeballs to their output and out-competing
their competitors for market share. Therefore they can always be expected to continually modify
and redesign that output in the direction of perceived changes in audience tastes.
I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from
"normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America
Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience
for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment
major new organizations are likely to produce.
Russians Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
Meddled to Help Trump http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017
... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts
in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing
at the American intelligence community's accusations.
"Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the
main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States
intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence.
...
Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian press.
"Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired
former state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25. She is a feisty defender of
her network, often lashing out against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more than
a weapon in a Russian information war against the West. Secretary of State John Kerry calls the
network a "propaganda bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and Senate foreign affairs
hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S. senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act,
which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems to enjoy battling RT's legions of
critics. When a BuzzFeed reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence, Simonyan
unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is
much more efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding sardonically that the network
"unleash[es] the KGB on anyone who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a yellow
telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan conceded to a Time reporter last year is
a secure line to the Kremlin.
In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride in the network, saying its efforts
reminded him of the way hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs. He most decidedly
wasn't mentioning that hotline to the Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal
of his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is presenting information freely and independently,"
Putin told the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around white-clothed tables. "We do
not control you. and we do not meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of 700
million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how many people actually watch; U.S. officials
say the American viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per week on cable systems
like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a budget
of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying
the cost of the network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million, though RT adamantly denies
that, and the original source of the report is unclear.)
Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia finds itself waging with the West,
referring to the "complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of events," including
in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience
yearning for unbiased facts.
But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network operates in practice, according to interviews
with people who closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of monitoring the network
and its website. One former RT staffer in Washington told me that she left her job, along with
others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the network's Moscow-based editors instruct
journalists to make their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line. Such concerns erupted
into full view a couple years ago when Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean
Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot
be a part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda vehicle trying to nudge viewers
toward Russia's side of the story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an international
pariah.
Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and independent news source Putin touted, and
more as a vehicle that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital revolution-from viral
videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote
Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly
on information, a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this story. Americans, she
said, watch RT for "stories, views and analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for
criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016 campaign, she sounded a positively
Trumpian theme, saying RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political establishment, who
are uncomfortable with losing the longtime monopoly on information."
RT has value in present circumstance similar (but less) to what BBC and Voice of America has
for Soviet people before that.
The fact that it is propaganda outlet of Russian government does not change this simple fact.
Soviet people also understood very well that the BBC and Voice of America are far from impartial
and propagate the point of view of corresponding governments. That understood all to well that
some information will be lies and disinformation and it provided by people who escape and hold
grudges against the USSR. Still they wanted "the second opinion" so badly that this
consideration overweighs all others. Even if in some cases they will be taken for a ride.
I think a very similar situation exists now in the USA. Neoliberal MSM were disgusting during
Presidential complain. As Trump supporter I simply could not read them.
And it is not surprising for them that now the US MSM are not trusted and people want a second
opinion on the MSM coverage of foreign and (increasingly) domestic events.
RT fills this niche and that's probably partially explains its popularity.
I personally seldom use it (and find some of its shows are quite annoying) as blogs and alternative
media such as therealnews.com unz.com, antiwar.com, counterpunch.org, etc can fill the same role.
I would like them to give Snowden a role of an independent security commentator. He probably understands
the current McCarthyism witch hunt better then others. And he has real technical knowledge
necessary for covering those events.
But some articles it published are good or even excellent and provide a decent insight into
the events in question.
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
Aid Trump, Report Finds
http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6
WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton
the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval
Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an
extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr.
Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that
brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face
to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect,
who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting
came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was
underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were
being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.
Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials
released the declassified, damning report that described the
sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian
effort to weaken the United States government and its
democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of,
real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies
that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about
to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored
candidate of Mr. Putin.
The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate
Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had
revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's
victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation
attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.
The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian
involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.
The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence
officials said was included in a classified version, which
they described as information on the sources and methods used
to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his
associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations
and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the
United States and its allies have put in Russian computer
networks. ...
If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in
the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous
question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears
hats promising to make America great again.
But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate.
And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few
foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr.
Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that
influence will continue if he wins.
I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's
performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's
"strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am,
instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in
office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the
expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.
That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr.
Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian
strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr.
Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism,
Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."
But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's
party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the
right was already widespread.
For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry
about little things like international law when he decides to
invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared
Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...
Slate: Trump's devotion to the Russian president has been
portrayed as buffoonish enthusiasm for a fellow macho
strongman. But Trump's statements of praise amount to
something closer to slavish devotion. In 2007, he praised
Putin for "rebuilding Russia." A year later he added, "He
does his work well. Much better than our Bush." When Putin
ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in
2013, Trump called it "a masterpiece."
What Putin Has to Say to Americans
About Syria
http://nyti.ms/1eFFMCQ
NYT - VLADIMIR V. PUTIN - SEPT. 11, 2013
Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump
Putin's letter is a masterpiece for Russia and a disaster for
the U.S. He is lecturing to our President.Never has our
Country looked to weak
You may have been right in thinking that
the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
presidency is no longer essential, at least
with regard to Russia.
Now I have secretly believed all
along that
US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
some bizness together, yes?
Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
defense system, priced to sell.
I don't think that you will ever find that a broad consensus
emerge that an elected candidate is legitimate.
Bill Clinton was attacked from day one and considered
illegitimate by the right because their (two) candidates had
gotten more votes.
Bush II was considered illegitimate by the left because he
was appointed by a right wing supreme court that refused to
wait and actually count the votes in Florida.
Obama was considered illegitimate by the right because of
birth certificates (yes sometimes they just make up shtuff to
allow themselves to believe) - and later because he used and
expanded the executive powers Bush had pushed at the end.
Ultimately a substantial number of people from the
opposite side of the political spectrum will question the
legitimacy of the elected president, whether there are
legitimate questions or not. The consequences for America is
what we have lived with since 1992; a super-charged
partisanship that is getting worse not better.
Obama - 2008:
52.9% of the popular vote, 365 electoral votes
whereas McCain got 45.7% & 173 ev; 58.2% turnout
Bush Sr - 1988:
53.4% & 426 ev vs. Dukakis with 45.6% & 111 ev;
50.2% turnout
Reagan, 2nd term - 1984:
58.8% & 525 ev vs 40.6% & 13 ev for Mondale; 53.3% turnout
Trump - 2016:
46% of the popular vote, 304 electoral votes
vs 48% & 227 ev for Clinton; 55.3% turnout.
All were 'legitimate' - putative Russian influence
aside, arguably. 'Mandates' can be asserted
only for the first three, IMO. Possibly excepting
Bush, due to low turnout.
Winning the electoral vote while losing the
popular vote makes this one a 'squeaker'.
Russians
Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
Meddled to Help Trump
http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017
... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a
state-funded television network that broadcasts in English,
who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message
on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's
accusations.
"Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro
to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's
influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.
Even Russians who have been critical of their government
voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies'
account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by
solid evidence. ...
EMichael -> Fred C. Dobbs...
, -1
Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian
press.
"Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old
editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired former
state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25.
She is a feisty defender of her network, often lashing out
against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more
than a weapon in a Russian information war against the West.
Secretary of State John Kerry calls the network a "propaganda
bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and
Senate foreign affairs hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S.
senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act,
which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems
to enjoy battling RT's legions of critics. When a BuzzFeed
reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence,
Simonyan unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the
latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is much more
efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding
sardonically that the network "unleash[es] the KGB on anyone
who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a
yellow telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan
conceded to a Time reporter last year is a secure line to the
Kremlin.
In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride
in the network, saying its efforts reminded him of the way
hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs.
He most decidedly wasn't mentioning that hotline to the
Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal of
his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is
presenting information freely and independently," Putin told
the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around
white-clothed tables. "We do not control you. and we do not
meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of
700 million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how
many people actually watch; U.S. officials say the American
viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per
week on cable systems like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish
Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a
budget of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican
Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying the cost of the
network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million,
though RT adamantly denies that, and the original source of
the report is unclear.)
Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia
finds itself waging with the West, referring to the
"complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of
events," including in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT
can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience
yearning for unbiased facts.
But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network
operates in practice, according to interviews with people who
closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of
monitoring the network and its website. One former RT staffer
in Washington told me that she left her job, along with
others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the
network's Moscow-based editors instruct journalists to make
their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line.
Such concerns erupted into full view a couple years ago when
Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean
Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl
to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot be a part of a network
funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions
of Putin."
Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda
vehicle trying to nudge viewers toward Russia's side of the
story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an
international pariah.
Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and
independent news source Putin touted, and more as a vehicle
that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital
revolution-from viral videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower
Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote
Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy
dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly on information,
a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this
story. Americans, she said, watch RT for "stories, views and
analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for
criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016
campaign, she sounded a positively Trumpian theme, saying
RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political
establishment, who are uncomfortable with losing the longtime
monopoly on information."
"... The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence. ..."
"... Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post; soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo the damage. ..."
The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian
hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the
intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they
are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the
agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same
conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence.
So, the
public is being asked to take the agencies on faith. The
Intercept says that given the agencies' record, journalists
should at least point this out, and not treat these
allegations as settled fact.
Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot
misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and
journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating
facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when
the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post;
soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone
knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo
the damage.
I do not disagree with this at all. We both realize there is
a limit to the info that can be released, but that should not
make us comfortable at this point.
I will point out two
things.
First, the FBI is on line with the consensus. Comey's
actions from this summer, when he went way off the
reservation to scold Clinton, to the clusterf!ck before the
election ( I believe that is a clear violation of the Hatch
Act) shows clearly that the FBI was no impartial.
Second, the "agencies' record" that is oft mentioned,
seems to place the blame on the Iraq war on those agencies.
As I remember (and I fought against people thinking bush's
actions were justified back then), there was no such
consensus among the intelligence community on the existence
of WMDs. Rather, there was strong doubts in some of the
groups.
None of that means this consensus is correct, but it does
seem to be totally agreed to by all of the community.
This attack on the Intel community itself, with absolutely
no contra info from outside the community (which certainly
existed regarding WMD info before Iraq) reminds me of people
laying blame on Clinton for invading Iraq. That was not her
call, but somehow she bears the blame with some people.
Most importantly, this is not about who the POTUS will be.
That is a fact. ANd I have seen no calls at all to cancel the
results of the election(nor should there be).
At the same time, this issue needs to be investigated
thoroughly, and if the allegations are true, Russia needs to
be punished for their actions.(oh, and I am not talking about
military actions).
If true, Putin should be sanctioned for another ten
years(or until he leaves) and we should take actions against
those who do not take actions against him. I mean, it is not
like there is not prior offenses by him in this area. He is a
threat to the stability of countries in eastern europe, the
middle east, europe, and now the US.
Shorter: lined up your fallacies to support what? Regime
change, war in Europe, nuclear holocaust....
longer:
Blood on Putin's hands! He is a pacifist compared to
Obama, even considering his military spends less than 7% what
the US wastes to kill people all over the world.
It is only in the past 8 years that the neocon, faux
democrat, neolibs have used NATO to threaten regime change on
Russia.
Poland and Hungary "joined" NATO when?*
All the blood on Obama's hands with the instigation of the
neocon Clinton's gang! Who is evil, certainly not the
exceptional Obama, the fascists in Ukraine nor the [neocons
of the] CIA trained jihadi proxies.
Putin rich, same as the Clintons rising from taking White
House flat wear in 2001. Besides CIA says Putin is a dot com
genius running hacks and all.......
*1997 Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, 1999 was the
Baltic states and several other "eastern" nations, the last
"enlargement" #6 Albania [got their county of Kosovo from
NATO in 1997] and Croatia was 2009.
We can see why the left wanted Clinton elected. A Clinton
presidency could lead to their desired war with Russia
(Putin). The left is inflamed that Trump won't act so quick
on such war-mongering, although there is other war-mongering
he will likely engage in (Middle East).
If we are going to
engage in regime change could we at least pick a dictator
that is economically starving their population (Maduro)?
Brainwashed part of commentariat here does not understand that the fact the USA escaped the
danger to be ruled by Clinton mafia is a blessing, not a curse. Trump does not matter in this
respect. The fact of escape matters a lot.
None of them would ever agree that the benefits to be ruled by a 69 years old health handicapped
(probably Parkinson stage II) neocon warmonger for the USA population might be highly questionable.
More so then for Trump, who also represents some dangers. That's for sure.
And there are quite a few such people here who uncritically repeat neoliberal propaganda: The
more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed ( if not plain vanilla evil ) they might
be in political issues. Probably a side effect of overspecialization.
Take for example a group of people here who claim that Putin is a kleptocrat. If so he obviously
should put his money in Western banks like any self-respecting kleptocrat ;-). But nobody has
found such a bank. And that includes a dozen of the USA intelligence agencies, which so easily
determined that government connected Russian hackers penetrated DNC stole emails and submitted
them to Wikileaks to influence the USA presidential election.
The fact that bank with his billions was never found, makes it more plausible that he is just
a moderate Russian nationalist (with some neoliberal tendencies -- he brought Russia into WTO)
and not a kleptocrat like neoliberal propaganda machine in the USA and GB proclaim.
But tell them that Hillary is a classic kleptocrat (and she clearly is taking bribes, sorry
donations and speaking fees, left and right) and they will do such a hissy fit that you will regret
that you touched this theme.
As for hacking hysteria tell them that it looks more and more plausible that some part of US
elite now is definitely interested in reviving "Red scare" to improve manageability and social
stability of neoliberal society, which with the election of Trump got into the second crisis after
2008, with the population no longer believing neoliberal myths and you will be declared Putin
stooge (Putin stooge for some commenters here is any person with whom they disagree; how convenient).
They are also very sensitive to political correctness rules. Just mention Building 7 and your
instantly become 9/11 truther. But, at the same time, most of them never watched 30 sec video
of building 7 collapse (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU ) and do not understand elementary physics.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." ..."
"... It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity for a Trump/Putin political approachment! ..."
"... This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law. As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance, and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated. ..."
"... Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics? ..."
"... We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first. ..."
"... "When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. ..."
"... The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie. ..."
"... The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil. ..."
Pat Buchanan In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled
35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern
shore.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin
stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children
to the Christmas and New Year's party at the Kremlin.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger," reads Proverbs 15:1. "Great
move," tweeted President-elect Trump, "I always knew he was very smart!"
Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.
Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship
with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After
all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being "Putin's puppet," lost.
Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?
That question raises several others.
Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony,
25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what
are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?
Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland
and Lithuania.
True, but who began this escalation?
George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon's ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles
in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of
a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army
withdrew.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.
Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.
Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.
Russia, it is said, has supported Syria's Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated
in the Aleppo slaughter.
But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?
Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that
had been Russia's ally for decades and hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean?
Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops
to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?
That's what allies do.
The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime
would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria's Christians?
Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.
But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless
coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.
Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the
Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest
of the USA?
As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left
behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that
are now independent nations.
Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?
Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside
transnationalism as the force of the future.
Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment
for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?
We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.
Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on
their own and are advancing through free elections.
Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important
to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship
of the EU.
In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society,
we prevailed.
But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural,
multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual "universal nation" whose avatar is Barack Obama.
Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and
her rights as a great power to be respected.
He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.
The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and
steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.
Reagan's outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to
Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon
Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."
Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded
coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by
international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to
rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international
studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are
too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the
"For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent. ,
I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens of hours
of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the web? Just look
at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed and frightened
people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout? ,
@CanSpeccy
Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.
Higher Education:
[A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy scholars
impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in the process.
Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves a special place
among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given the position of National
Security Advisor.
Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.
• Agree:
Realist • Replies:
@sturbain Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge
and wisdom.
It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in
essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity
for a Trump/Putin political approachment!
This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf
of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years
ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's
pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law.
As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance,
and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending
their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post
has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the
canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This
should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated.
@Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos
after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote
was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in
Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal
agreement
But what it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?
• Replies:
@Avery {But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}
Agree.
At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical
arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify
their aggression against Russia.
@Carlton
Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a
CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was
watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea
voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read
any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned
at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot
understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of
international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX
news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning
things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.
I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the key
word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.
They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at
best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think
outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.
They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.
Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.
Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.
Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National
Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?
We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.
Indeed, though comparing Russia's trivial efforts in this direction with the untold billions
poured into "democracy promotion" (ie subversion) by the US and its various proxies, to say nothing
of direct and indirect military action, is inherently absurd.
The irony is that US sphere policy created the very political climate in Russia that ultimately
ensured the democratic mandate and imperative for the Russian resistance we have seen in the past
decade.
In the words of Solzhenitsyn in 2007:
"When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically
being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious
choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that
all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation
then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics
into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness
to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living
on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn
apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with
the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western
policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals."
And here is what Kissinger said about the Kosovo war:
"The rejection of long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo
conflict without adequate consideration of its implications
The transformation of the NATO alliance from a defensive military grouping to an institution
prepared to impose its values by force undercut repeated American and allied assurances that
Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion."
Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
• Replies:
@Cagey Beast That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The
ethnic Russians of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on
the map by Lenin and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far
west should go ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the
country can get along with Russia. ,
@Verymuchalive When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks
mainly in the period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin,
Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians
into the administrative areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule.
As late as 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia
to the Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian since 1783.
As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside
the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before
the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before
the upstart American republic was founded.
These people - please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former
USSR not historically Russian - have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join
Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this
is what is likely to happen long term.
It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until
the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack
and kill ethnic Russians.
The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in
Georgia.
Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic
Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part. ,
@Ondrej
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?
They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what
was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+
ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are
just called those Russians.. :-)
Not only is it absolutely clear that nearly ALL Americans want peace and prosperity over the
continued debacle of war and insolvency .we are also quite perturbed by our dishonest leaders
who have robbed us blind by initiating them.
You might find yourself speaking for over 300 million Americans who not only wish our leaders
to cease and desist from this grotesque escapade of perpetual, belligerent war making, but we
ALL want our 14.3 trillion in obscene war debt clawed back to US , for having been "deceived"
into these conflicts in the first place.
Americans do not ENJOY being defrauded out of all their dough to go murder people that never
attacked us.
We don't like it AT ALL.
Tell President Trump what Americans really want ..is OUR MONEY BACK --
He should make it his TOP priority to go get it --
@Carlton
Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a
CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was
watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea
voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
Re: Putin being a "thug".
I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens
of hours of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the
web?
Just look at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed
and frightened people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout?
Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort"
the dude out in person instead of using security.
Trump kicks biographer off golf course
Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.
Mr. Buchanan has consistently done a great job covering this topic. I'd reinforce his arguments
by pointing out Crimea had a unique status within Ukraine as an Autonomous Republic with its own
parliament, unlike the other regions. Crimea always had one foot out the door; it was Vicky Nuland
and the colour revolution gang who pushed them all the way out.
I'd also add that it's well worth watching the hours of video footage collected during and
after the Euromaidan revolution and available at YouTube under the title "Roses Have Thorns".
and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa, clearly coordinated
by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.
In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from
the side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who
just shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the
time).
However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb.
bullshit, everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented
bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that
Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only
having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.
The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.
I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful
distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not
that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting
from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents
by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.
Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests
of other birds.
• Replies:
@Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.
I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites
was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been
instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.
He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s.
The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men.
The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.
They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of
the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.
Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they
are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned
at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot
understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international
studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They
are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things
from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.
That is the key word "educated."
I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the
key word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.
They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at
best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think
outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.
They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.
Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.
Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.
Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The ethnic Russians
of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on the map by Lenin
and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far west should go
ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the country can get
along with Russia.
Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks mainly in the
period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky
etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians into the administrative
areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule. As late as 1954, Nikita
Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. Crimea
had been Russian since 1783.
As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside
the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before
the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before
the upstart American republic was founded.
These people – please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former
USSR not historically Russian – have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join
Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this
is what is likely to happen long term.
It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until
the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack
and kill ethnic Russians.
The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in
Georgia.
Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic
Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part.
But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed
a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government
in Kiev.
This is risible. There was no coup in Ukraine. Yanukovich decided to order the Berkut to open
fire on the protesters on the Maidan, and he ran to escape justice. He was removed from office,
constitutionally when he abandoned the office and ran for Russia.
By the Pat, I was part of the "Brigades" when you ran for President, but you're getting senile.
Russia did invade Crimea. That there were already troops there is irrelevant. They left their
posts and took over the peninsula. That constitutes an invasion in any book. The "no invasion"
business is pure manure.
As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk
left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics
that are now independent nations.
Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern
Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority
of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to
by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine
weren't able to get any further.
@jacques sheete Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort"
the dude out in person instead of using security.
Trump kicks biographer off golf course
Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.
Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!
You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been
better, but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.
Imagine the hysteria if it had been!
Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.
Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring
room
The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby
course was so superior, why did they not go there first?
Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief,
but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.
It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.
I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent
solo would be brilliant, start the support tags up!
Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious
doubts, and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.
Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying
conflicts as WWIII, as we should.
Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places,
at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.
WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.
@Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos
after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote
was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in
Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA
funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.
It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum
was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.
That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".
Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The
man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him
to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider
themselves "educated."
Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they
still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.
Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The
man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet
him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many
US allies.
Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern
Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority
of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified
to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine
weren't able to get any further.
He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch
army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among
other places) ,
@Avery { It was an invasion, }
No it wasn't: one cannot invade one's own land.
Crimea was part of Russia for a couple of centuries.
Part of Russia SSR during USSR.
Khrushchev, an un-elected Soviet dictator, on a whim, without asking the people of Crimea, transferred
the administration of Crimea to Ukriane SSR.
An illegal act.
In 1991, as USSR was crumbling, people of Crimea ran a referendum on sovereignty. It passed by
94%. Kiev ignored it.
Since USSR no longer existed, Ukraine SSR had no legal claim to Crimea, even _if_ for a moment
we consider Khrushchev's illegal act 'legal' (sic).
When neo-Nazis overthrew the legally and democratically elected administration of Yanukovych,
a coup financed by Soros (he admitted as much to Fareed Zakaria of CNN), and aided&abetted by
anti-American US Neocons (Nuland), and started pogroms of ethnic Russians (e.g. Massacre of Odessa),
ethnic Russians of Crimea saw what was coming and wisely chose not to get massacred.
Done.
{Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime.}
The label 'thug' is used by the real thugs in US, anti-American agents of foreign interests, to
smear a leader whose allegiance is to his own country.
Unlike the thugs and gangsters in US Gov who serve foreign interests.
Who are eager to expend American blood and treasure to advance the interests of anti-American
globalists.
Putin must be demonized, because Putin is a bad example for these reptilian foreign organisms
which have infested the US body politic, because suddenly American people might see the light
and elect someone whose first allegiance is to America First - imagine that.
{Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda.}
No, you have been.
Or more likely, you are the purveyor of anti-American propaganda.
Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these
Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.
Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?
They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what
was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+
ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are
just called those Russians..
They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what
was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5 years
before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians,
some of them Old Believers.
Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column. Not
gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan
and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen",
that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.
Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded
coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.
It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum
was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.
That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".
Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man
is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to
be able to judge what he is from his actions.
They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves
"educated."
Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they still
get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.
Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime.
The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to
meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many
US allies.
Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern
Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority
of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified
to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine
weren't able to get any further.
He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch
army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among
other places)
• Replies:
@Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.
October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. "The US is Threatening Every
Country on Planet Earth"
The Debate: Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Williams By Press TV and Prof Michel Chossudovsky Press
TV 27 October 2016
NATO says it is going ahead with its plans to deploy thousands of troops and military hardware
to three Baltic States and Poland that all border Russia. The military alliance claims that the
measure is a response to a Russia's military build-up and increased activity around NATO's borders.
The Russian president, however, has denounced NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe. President Putin
has blamed the military alliance for global instability. NATO's latest venture to encircle Russia
& its repercussions, in this edition of the Debate.
In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian
diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern
shore.
For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal
agreement
But what it was a verbal agreement - how is that a reason for breaking it?
{But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}
Agree.
At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical
arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify
their aggression against Russia.
@Mark Green Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves
a special place among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given
the position of National Security Advisor.
Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.
Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge
and wisdom.
January 01, 2017 52,369 Killed in Iraq during 2016; 3,174 Killed During December
In December, at least 3,174 people were killed and 1,939 were wounded. Of these, 798 were civilians
killed. Another 1,658 civilians were injured. Security forces lost 154 personnel, while another
177 were wounded. At least 2,181 militants were killed, and 104 were injured. Also, at least 41
Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) members were killed in Turkish airstrikes within Iraqi territory.
These figures are likely to be low estimates.
Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The
man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet
him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many
US allies.
Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern
Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority
of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified
to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine
weren't able to get any further.
He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch
army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among
other places)
Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.
• Replies:
@Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this,
though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge. ,
@bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes,
both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty
every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...
No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though
the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.
• Replies:
@Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."
Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up
from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per
capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan
which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good
qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.
Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it
was in the late 1980s.
@Che Guava Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!
You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been better,
but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.
Imagine the hysteria if it had been!
Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.
Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring
room ...
The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby course
was so superior, why did they not go there first?
Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief,
but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.
It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.
I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent solo
would be brilliant, start the support tags up!
Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious doubts,
and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.
Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying
conflicts as WWIII, as we should.
Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places,
at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.
WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.
Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now
We have no inherent conflicts with Russia. The USSR was a godless, communist imperial state
with expansionist aspirations. We beat them. Over. We WON.
Russia is our natural ally against China. In terms of the bigger picture, NATO is disturbing,
and we needlessly provoked Russia by mindless expansion. However, NATO has led to European nations
'cheating' on their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on their military. This cheating has effectively
disarmed Europe. And, in fact - we have kept Germany on a short leash. Which is hugely advantageous
to Russia.
But aside from all that - there simply isn't a serious reason to mix it up with Russia. Does
anyone in the West really care about the Black Sea?
As far as the notion that Russia wants go Imperial and start taking territory - get real. Russia
invading Ukraine and annexing the entire country makes as much sense as the US invading and annexing
Mexico. Ukraine was (is) a customer for its natural gas. A profit center, if you will. After an
invasion, it would simply be an expense. Ukraine is poorer, and it would be expensive to integrate
the into Russia. And as far as the 'breadbasket' of Eurasia, Russia now exports grain.
So - why shouldn't Trump and Putin chill out?
The biggest problem is that the US can't seem to take YES for an answer. Or Victory as sufficient.
We see it over and over and over. And then take the wasted resources and pass them out to US citizens.
Give us our peace dividend.
01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World – For the Better
The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations
into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades
to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over
the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on
their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually
accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.
If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The
Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the
US shown iftself unable to act coherently.
What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power
to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator,
an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would
be wise to emulate Ford.
• Replies:
@Realist Why should the US be involved in Syria?
"What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to
make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."
This is a stupid post even by your standards. ,
@Marcus The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi,
etc.) was more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.
@Agent76 01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better
The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations
into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades
to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over
the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on
their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually
accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.
@Sean
If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The
Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the
US shown iftself unable to act coherently.
What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power
to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator,
an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would
be wise to emulate Ford.
Why should the US be involved in Syria?
"What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power
to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."
"If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen.
The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after
the US shown iftself unable to act coherently."
I think you might be correct. There was no unity of purpose. DOD was not on the same wavelength
as CIA Gen. Dempsey of DIA even sabotaged weapon delivery by CIA to rebels and kept open channels
to Assad via Tel Aviv, Berlin and Moscow (Seymour Hersh):
Obama was dragging his feet. In 2013 he allowed to defuse the crisis with the help of Putin
and avoided introducing the no-fly zone, though Putin paid for it dearly with Ukraine in 2014.
Whatever was Obama motive (Wanted to have clean hands?, Earn that Peace Nobel Price?), I reluctantly
give him a credit for not escalating Syria though still I blame him for letting the civil war
in Syria happen on his watch in the first place. After all it was a part of Libyan operation when
weapons and rebels were moved between the two countries. Still Obama even among his critics is
presented that he reacted only to Libya while the proactive part was done by Hillary, CIA, French
and British.
Cold War II will be with China, not Russia, sadly. Western neo-nationalists fail to recognize
that China is just as tribalistic and anti-SJWism as Russia, if not more - and is in a better
position to undermine postmodernist bullshit on a global scale.
The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions
in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological
nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next
archrival.
A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies
on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists
always gives the left the advantage.
Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the various
stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with the aid
of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning the Kissinger-inspired
tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired
tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter today's rapidly rising China.
Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving
aside transnationalism as the force of the future.
Putin may be a national sovereigntist –i.e., against the new world order–but he really
doesn't strike me as much of an "ethnonationalist". He has never opposed all the immigration into
Russia from the Caucasus or Central Asia, nor has he annexed any ethnic-Russian enclaves in the
former SSRs, apart from Crimea, of course.
My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted
for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time,
perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted
• Replies:
@Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."
You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.
"both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two
you posted "
As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?
"I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."
Corvinus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
January 3, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
@bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes,
both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty
every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...
"My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes "
You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources
entirely.
"both noted for their propaganda " "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the
two you posted "
As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?
"I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time "
That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned"
his money.
• Replies:
@bluedog That would be a False News Story.There are a number of sources that discuss how he
"earned" his money.
List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda
about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..
If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The
Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the
US shown iftself unable to act coherently.
What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power
to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator,
an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would
be wise to emulate Ford.
The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi, etc.) was
more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.
Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving
aside transnationalism as the force of the future.
Sorry – Tribalism and transnationalism are both bad for humanity.
The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty
to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must
flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a
world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie.
Heaven knows that national tribalism is also bad for humanity. We must return to local ownership
and identity. America started out as individual local states where things were voted on by local
people. Local people owned the land and the businesses. Localism is the heart of a stable society.
Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded
coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by
international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to
rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.
Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for
a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just
a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.
I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any
of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at
such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand
they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.
Higher Education:
[A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy
scholars impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in
the process.
The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions
in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological
nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next
archrival.
A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies
on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists
always gives the left the advantage.
Cold War II will be with China, not Russia
Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the
various stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with
the aid of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning
the Kissinger-inspired tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant
Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter
today's rapidly rising China.
Now that America again has a real man of normal sexuality at the helm, relations with Russia
will normalize. President Putin reminds the former president, little Barry Sotero, that he's a
sissy, and it infuriates little Barry and the Democrats that President Putin will not genuflect
to the GayKK. Buchanan's masterly geopolitical analysis aside, refusal to celebrate LGBTQWERTY
is the wellspring of the Left's Russophobia.
The fakestream media will continue demonizing President Putin, but President Trump will drop
all sanctions against Russia and individual Russians, and Cold War II will be handily averted.
Pat Buchanan is truly a great man. Look at how he has made so many accurate predictions of
what was to come. He is a scholar, a realist, and a genuine patriot–unlike Bush, McCain, and Romney.
He was an unusually talented man in our corrupted world.
He was and is a far better man than Donald Trump, although Trump at least has an inkling of
what it means to be patriotic. It was a tremendous tragedy that the majority of the American people
failed to recognize his greatness when he ran for president. I recognized it, but I knew he was
doomed because he was considered to be anti-semitic. His cause faltered, and we suffered as a
people.
We are in a far more precarious state today because we failed him. I believe that if we had
the good sense to elect him president at the time, our world today would be far better than it
is now.
@Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this,
though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.
"..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge "
Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up
from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per
capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan
which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good
qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.
Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it
was in the late 1980s.
So last night I was watching one of the Russian political talk shows and one of the separatists
from Ukraine was saying things like "We're waiting for you, for your help" and a few Moscovite
Russians from the audience (expert and the moderator) were like "Er, you should be able to take
care of your own self, we don't wanna pay for you!". So there's that. So much for the "countrymen".
@Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."
Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up
from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per
capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan
which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good
qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.
Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it
was in the late 1980s.
Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what
it was in the late 1980s.
It is certainly true that the United States "is even less free than what it was in the late
1980s."
They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians
to destabilize non-Russian countries.
Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?
They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was
originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties
and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called
those Russians.. :-)
They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established
what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5
years before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians,
some of them Old Believers.
Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column.
Not gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan
and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen",
that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.
@Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."
Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up
from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per
capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan
which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good
qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.
Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it
was in the late 1980s.
There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party
in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
• Replies:
@Anonymous Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved
since 2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states.
Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?
Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts. ,
@Anonymous
There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have
criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed
their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little
bit of criticism?
@Che Guava ... and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa,
clearly coordinated by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.
In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from the
side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who just
shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the time).
However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb. bullshit,
everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented
bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that
Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only
having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.
The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.
I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful
distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not
that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting
from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents
by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.
Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests of
other birds.
Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.
I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was
obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed
to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.
He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the
1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black
men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.
They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head
of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.
Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated
they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.
• Replies:
@utu "The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." -
Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable to
their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most
of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards
like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most
animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines.
It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized
themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were
mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy
because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s
were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism
and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.
The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute
the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill
battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done
not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly
deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose
(like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts
to nil.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal
party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved since
2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states.
Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?
Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts.
@Marcus
There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party
in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have
criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed
their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little
bit of criticism?
The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.
That's because they're not educated; only brainwashed.
It's even worse with the rich, pampered, bored, simple minded, punks who jump onto every perverse
bandwagon that comes along for the thrills of momentarily appearing "hip," "cool" "defiant" and
"fashionable."
@Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."
You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.
"both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two
you posted "
As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?
"I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."
That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his
money.
That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned"
his money.
List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda
about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..
@Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.
I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites
was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been
instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.
He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s.
The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men.
The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.
They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of
the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.
Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they
are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.
"The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." –
Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable
to their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most
of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards
like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most
animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines.
It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized
themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were
mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy
because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s
were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism
and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.
The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They
constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it
face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually
it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being
truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose
(like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts
to nil.
Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
Aid Trump, Report Finds
http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6
WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia
directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton
the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval
Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an
extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.
The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr.
Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that
brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face
to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect,
who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting
came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was
underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were
being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.
Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials
released the declassified, damning report that described the
sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian
effort to weaken the United States government and its
democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of,
real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies
that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about
to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored
candidate of Mr. Putin.
The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate
Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had
revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's
victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation
attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.
The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian
involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.
The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence
officials said was included in a classified version, which
they described as information on the sources and methods used
to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his
associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations
and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the
United States and its allies have put in Russian computer
networks. ...
If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in
the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous
question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears
hats promising to make America great again.
But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate.
And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few
foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr.
Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that
influence will continue if he wins.
I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's
performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's
"strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am,
instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in
office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the
expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.
That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr.
Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian
strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr.
Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism,
Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."
But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's
party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the
right was already widespread.
For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry
about little things like international law when he decides to
invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared
Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:09 AM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
'when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American
exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."'
Duality: Clinton
had no animus in breaking the law concerning lost public
records and mishandling security information, but Putin is
evil!
What they gave Trump is an 'assessment', appeal to
authority all Krugman wants.
Same kind of 'assessment' that gave you Iraq.
The main plea coming from the media, war corporatists and
the distraught is: we cannot ignore the spook's assessments.
Neolibs are different than their equals in the GOP because
they care about the feelings of war mongers and cannot keep
them from their wars of profit.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:24 AM
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm...
You may have been right in thinking that
the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
presidency is no longer essential, at least
with regard to Russia.
Now I have secretly believed all
along that
US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
some bizness together, yes?
Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
defense system, priced to sell.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 03:32 PM
libezkova said in reply to ilsm...
Neocons just dusted off Senator McCarthy play book and
changed "communists" into "Russian agents."
The fact that Krugman would eventually join neo-McCarthyism
witch hunt was given. What else would you expect? Working for
NYT carries certain obligations. Add to this his former
cheerleading for Hillary. So Krugman's behavior as a
political commentator is far from surprising. He just carries
water for the US neocons.
"Russians are coming" is now the rallying cry of the
neocons/neolibs in Washington. Who are concerned not about
the country and it security against foreign intelligence
efforts (many of then are "Israel first" types), but about
losing their lucrative sinecures.
Some suggested that McCarthy witch hunt (the crusade against
communist subversives) which started in February 9, 1950, was
a smoke screen to suppress questions about large influx of
former Nazi specialists into the USA, and also the way to
prepare the US population to possible war with the USSR,
which was on the drawing boards since 1945.
The plans to bomb with A-bombs key Soviet sites while Soviets
do not have nuclear bombs to retaliate were created even the
end of WWII.
== quote ==
Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces' Joint
Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR
months before the end of the Second World War. The first
edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In
accordance with the plan the invasion of Russia-held Europe
by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945.
...The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its
primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the
United States and the British Empire.
... ... ...
The British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff underscored
that the Allied Forces would win in the event of
1) the occupation of such metropolitan areas of Russia so
that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced
to a point to which further resistance would become
impossible";
2) "such a decisive defeat of the Russian forces in the field
as to render it impossible for the USSR to continue the war."
... ... ...
...after the United States "tested" its nuclear arsenal in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Churchill and
right-wing American policy makers started to persuade the
White House to bomb the USSR.
A nuclear strike against Soviet Russia, exhausted by the war
with Germany, would have led to the defeat of the Kremlin at
the same time allowing the Allied Forces to avoid US and
British military casualties, Churchill insisted.
Needless to say, the former British Prime Minister did not
care about the death of tens of thousands of Russian peaceful
civilians which were already hit severely by the four-year
war nightmare.
"He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be
dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very
easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be
without direction," an unclassified note from the FBI archive
read.
... ... ...
Unthinkable as it may seem, Churchill's plan literally won
the hearts and minds of US policy makers and military
officials. Between 1945 and the USSR's first detonation of a
nuclear device in 1949, the Pentagon developed at least nine
nuclear war plans targeting Soviet Russia, according to US
researchers Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod.
In their book "To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret
War Plans," based on declassified top secret documents
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the
researchers exposed the US military's strategies to initiate
a nuclear war with Russia.
"The names given to these plans graphically portray their
offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown,
Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US
military knew the offensive nature of the job President
Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their
war plans accordingly," remarked American scholar J.W. Smith
("The World's Wasted Wealth 2").
These "first-strike" plans developed by the Pentagon were
aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United
States.
The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack
Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000
tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas,
including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition,
the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign
against the USSR to win a "complete victory" over the Soviet
Union together with the European allies. According to the
plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
http://russia-insider.com/en/history/1945-49-us-and-uk-planned-bomb-russia-stone-age/ri9530
== end of the quote ===
I think neocons are extremely worried about possible changes
in foreign policy, Trump administration might implement. And
they have quite a lot to hide, which might come into clear
after Trump enters White House. And this time much more is in
stake, then Obama birth certificate. So they want some kind
of "immunity deal." similar to what Trump already (and
probably prematurely) promised to Clintons.
That's why they now work overtime to delegitimize Trump.
Obama action with the expulsion of Russian diplomats belongs
to the same category. He was trying to force Trump hand and
protect his neoliberal "legacy" (and associated skeletons in
the closet) in very Machiavellian way.
What is also not surprising is that those intelligence
agencies conveniently forget the USA behavior in Russian
Presidential elections of 2011-2012 when they tried to stage
a color revolution (called "While revolution").
Ambassador McFaul was involved as well as all major US NGO
such as NED. McFaul left the country soon after elections,
NED was kicked out.
WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia
Threat While Public Is Deceived
By Glenn Greenwald
IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two
blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral:
one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of "fake
news," the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid.
Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a
humiliating editor's note grudgingly acknowledging that the
core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was
posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original
article; the other was buried the following day at the
bottom.
The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far
worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when
it became clear that there was no "penetration of the U.S.
electricity grid" as the Post had claimed. In addition to the
editor's note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now
has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article
admitting that "the incident is not linked to any Russian
government effort to target or hack the utility" and there
may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.
But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper,
they are also richly rewarding. That's because journalists -
including those at the Post - aggressively hype and promote
the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that
they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the
paper's executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about
how profitable the paper has become).
After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear
levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the
process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable
news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently
note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way
possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny
fraction of people who were exposed to the original false
story end up learning of the retractions....
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:40 AM
Peter K. said in reply to anne...
Since the Washington Post was bought by Amazon billionaire
Jeff Bezos, it's nice to see that the quality of their
journalism hasn't improved.
In fact they fired Harold
Meyerson who used to be a good quality lefty.
Apparently he criticized progressive neoliberalism too
much and had to go.
Reply
Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:46 AM
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Putin has to be evil, all the phony evidence* points to it!
The Russia run by Putin have to be evil because if they are
not then the CIA is lying, US cannot have the spooks who run
up jihadis against nations and see yellow cake seen as less
than crusaders for the empire.
Worse if Putin is not evil the US should not run NATO up
to Moscow!
The MSM is building a case to do Putin like the one to do
Assad.
The service is an example of propaganda using "deductive
reasoning"; a journalist interviewing lots of propagandists
and using their spin to support an hypothesis that is Clinton
Mrs Kagan/Nuland neocon bat crazy!
The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe
about the dire threat from Putin!
At least once a year Barry posts the cheat sheet, then he
sets out hundreds of examples in his reads.
Tonight we were presented with the
one-on-one interview between Sean Hannity and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. In the first segment that Hannity
showed, Assange stated that Rushua was not involved in
providing WikiLeaks with the hacked emails from the DNC or
John Podesta, and neither was a state party. Assange, who
is confined to the Ecuadorean embassy in London due to a
warrant for sexual assault in Sweden, was asked if
President Barack Obama was lying when claiming Rushuaans
were behind the hacks since Assange is saying Rushua
wasn't involved. "Well, he is acting like a lawyer," he
noted. "If you look at most of his statements he doesn't
say that. He doesn't say WikiLeaks obtained its
information from Rushua, worked with Rushua." Later on,
when describing why Obama had a dramatic response to
Rushua via sanctions, Assange says he is "trying to
delegitimize the Trump Administration as it goes into the
White House."Hannity Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17.
Sean Hannity gave us a preview of his revealing exclusive
interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which
will air on Fox News Channel tonight at 10pm ET. Assange
spoke for about 90 minutes at the Ecuadorian embassy in
London, where he has remained for four-and-a-half years
under threat of arrest. Hannity said they discussed "the
state of journalism" in the United States and what was not
covered by the media when it came to the contents of the
hacked emails.
Spc Garza
19
hours ago
This guy is way to smart for the government lol!!!
Stay safe
Jakareh75
17
hours ago
Julian Assange has more integrity in one fingernail
than does the entire mainstream media. And that is
why he's under a bogus indictment for rape by
Sweden, the same country that allows Muslim
subhumans scores of their women every day with
impunity. The rotten liberals who run Sweden go
after Julian Assange but not their Muslim pets.
Alex Phillips
16
hours ago
as a fellow Australian i find it absolutely fucking
disgraceful that our government isn't fighting tooth
and nail to clear Julian's name. .....stand strong
Julian. ....walk with your head held high. ....keep
on doing what you are doing. ....god bless you and
keep you safe.
Arisen Hemloc
21
minutes ago
Alex: I wouldn't call us Fascist. Fascist
governments are hard to fully achieve
because they require so many attributes in
comparison to other extremes like
Communism. It needs to be Nationalistic
(which, let's face, we're not at the
moment), a dictatorship (which, we're not
yet), Authoritarian to the extreme (we're
VERY close to that), and quite a few other
qualities. But regardless, Australia is
clamped down by regulations and laws which
choke business, a moron who wants a Carbon
Tax (useless. Doesn't even help Climate
Change if you believe in it), Emissions
Trading Scheme (Again, worthless) and has
the political sense of a rock, stupid
Socialist departments that aren't working (Centrelink)
because the economy is so blotto, we've got
gun laws that will probably lead to us all
getting machine gunned down by some Islamic
with an AK and slowly our borders are
becoming less and less secure. We're at the
point of America at the moment, not Germany
or France yet, but getting there. Only our
Ocean protects us from that. Under Rudd and
Gillard, we were moving heavily Socialist.
Under Abbot, in an attempt to fix the
damage they did, he shoved us too far the
other way. We need a Trump now and I get a
feeling it'll come from a coalition between
Hansen and Bernardi. Bernardi is
considering, if he hasn't already, leaving
the Liberals and starting a real
Conservative Party for the people, but to
get into power he'll need a coalition.
Either that or someone in the Liberals will
need to get rid of Turnbull and fix our
system. We can't trust Labor because they
have that Union boss creep Shorten as their
leader and he's nuttier than Rudd. It's
sad, but Assange will not be allowed back
into Australia or helped by Australia while
our current cycle of nut job politics keep
on going. We need Howard or Menzies back.
Also, for you Americans, our politicians
aren't as corrupt as yours (the Labor
maybe), but ours are just incompetent 75%
of the time.
Stacey Johnson
21
hours ago
This was a great interview. Hopefully now that
Assange has established for the millionth time that
Russia did not hack, we (as in all truth media
outlets like RT, Hannity, etc) need to stop focusing
on and talking about who did the hacking. Its time
to start investigating, talking about and exposing
the actual content of the emails, all of them not
just the ones that expose the media and campaign
corruption. Yet RT, Hannity, etc are not talking
about it or asking the questions that need to be
asked or investigating it. Why isn't anyone asking
about the Clinton foundation and its link to human
trafficking or why Monica Peterson was found dead
while investigating it?? Why isn't anyone asking
Podesta to explain all the strange and suspicious
code talk that is factual signs, symbols and code
words for pedophilia used over and over in these
emails? Why aren't they asking about the ties and
connections to occult rituals? Why aren't they
asking about the sickening art collections? Why
aren't they asking about the strange and
inappropriate happenings that go on at Ping Pong
Pizza? The flight logs of the Lolita express, which
is owned by a convicted sex offender, to "orgy
island"? Clinton's reasons for going there without
secret service detail on numerous occasions? The
deaths of so many people connected to the
Clinton's?? I still don't understand why these
things are still not being talked about?!?!
PopTartsAndCinemax
7
hours ago
Saudi Arabia bankrolled HRC's campaign but please,
tell us how the Russians are interfering in the
election... lol...
John S
5
hours ago
SA is using US $$ and weapons via Hillary's state
department to bankroll ISIS. But please, more
Russia!!
Paul X
11
hours ago
Hannity worries about where Assange draws the line,
and whether his releases might endanger human lives
(those of spies, I suppose). The problem with that
line is that human lives are endangered no matter
what! If Assange releases information, some lives
are endangered. If he doesn't, other lives are
endangered. Let's face it, Madeleine Albright said
that it was "worth it" if half a million Iraqi
people were killed in the pursuit of American
imperialist ambitions. And let's face it, if spies'
lives are endangered, well they signed up for that
danger. It's part of their job to deal with it. If
the release of truth endangers them, then maybe they
are doing something they shouldn't be doing. I don't
for a second believe the American (or any other)
ruling class gives a rat's ass about the lives of
ordinary peons being endangered.
Cam Smith
1
hour ago
Great interview by Mr. Hannity! And thank you Mr.
Assange for your dedication to the truth!
Jolly Froster
2
hours ago
Assange created wikileaks to give more info to
voters to stop wars. Hillary and the neocons wanted
war with Russia through her no fly zone so the
Saudis could get their pipeline in Syria. Hilary was
stopped. So now they are using wikileaks to try and
start the war.
Gary McAleer
1
hour ago
Everyone in the msm calls Julian Assange a liar when
he emphatically said that Russia was not the source
of the Clinton or Podesta emails. I'll take Julian's
impartial word over the politically selfish
interests here in America. Frankly, I'm sick and
tired of all the disinformation Americans have been
fed. Deliberate liars will be met with fire on "the
resurrection of damnation." "The wicked shall
perish: and shall be as the fat of lambs: into smoke
shall they consume away." Ps.37. So many in this
country lie as easily as they breathe. Their lies
will be their ruin.
Michael Snow
2
hours ago
Tonight, on PBS Nightly Business Report (NBR)
produced by CNBC, the reference to 'Russian hacking'
smeared Julian Assange as a 'fugitve from criminal
justice' in the USA.
Rod Ruger
11
hours ago
True, proven information is anathema to governments
that seeks tyranny. The goal of such governments is
to befuddle, misinform, instill fear, and otherwise
keep citizens in a fog.
George G
19
hours ago
WOW Assange is so much more credible than Obama and
his cooked up Intel narrative. The only facts that
truly point to a crime is that WIKILEAKS revealed
crimes committed by the democrate which included
Obama and it needs to be prosecuted AFTER HE LEAVES
OFFICE!
AntonBatey
11
hours ago
I have always supported Julian Assange. I do not
like Sean Hannity and disagree with him roughly 90
percent of the time. If Julian Assange attempted to
sabotage Donald Trump (and by default helping
Hillary Clinton) and continued to expose the war
crimes and internal emails exposing America's
imperialist interests, Hannity would brush him off
as a traitor and would claim that nothing he said
should be trusted or believed. But he helped Trump
and (appropriately) exposed Hillary Clinton was a
warmongering corporate shill who helped sabotage
Bernie Sanders, so Hannity lends his words as
credible.
Barbara Mowrey
20
hours ago
Like a lawyer, means, double talk . To seem legit
through actions and talk, alone, with no evidence,
hoping the action, or subpoena to make act, (send
diplomats out of the country) is that "tangible"
evidence when it is not even close! Double talk.
Keep em guessing to stay legit, again. Make evidence
when none exists.
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago (edited)
podesta's own email said the clinton foundation leak
was eric braverman, missing for months now. and in
podesta's own words, he fingered braverman as the
leak. you really have to be willfully blind at this
point to think otherwise
Laine Gordon
15
hours ago
he looks good..healthy considering what TPTB are
doing to him, for providing a legitimate platform
for whistleblowers ,...how much clearer could he
have been? a LEAK, not a HACK,...an individual
unrelated to russian state. and since he hinted
during a netherlands interview last year that the
source ( which he has always refused to name , to
protect the integrity and safety of the source) was
seth rich, not to mention the ex ambassador
admitting he received material from the
whistleblower in a park near AU, the Dems' trying to
start WW3 with russia seems like theatre of the
absurd
Gamer Boy
5
hours ago
HOLD UP HOLD UP HOLD UP Will someone look at the
first question Julian answers about "did he think
Trump would win" He says someone hacked/leaked it
who wanted to get more donations for her to win,
because if the people thought she was losing that
more money would come in upwards of 5 Billion and
she had only gotten 1.5 billion so far!!! So she
needed that push to put her down in the polls for
more money to come in. so it could have been someone
in the Media industry as he says who wanted more for
money, the DNC... I don't know but someone smart
please look into this. Did Russia need money from
her? who wanted to get her donations up to 5
billion. Watch his very first answer over and over
it's right there! lets figure it out!!
"... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
"... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
"... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election
issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break
up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.
For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we
ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to
Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.
We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our
two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for
a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?
Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting
a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.
It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is
on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics
into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.
This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich
Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not
also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
" At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied
away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats
will soon face enormously risky decisions.
Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does
it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign
promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"
It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive
neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views.
And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.
State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that
make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING
IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new
spending ...
.. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't
want to TAKE BACK ...
... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).
There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional
convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of
commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national
legislature exercise on the matter.
I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value,
even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation),
but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States.
Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering
and favoring pleadings just went away.
Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
JAN. 4, 2017
"Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase
economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The
Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."
Progressive neoliberalism...
And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter
its path of rate hikes.
And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.
An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made
here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief
that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.
Can you spend time on the republicans too?
Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years
and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would
probably be helpful.
Introduction: There are deep flaws in the blogs, media reports, and official statements, which
purport to describe world historic events and changes.
These so-called 'up-to-date' reports of major world events undergo repeated revisions in hours,
days or weeks as the story is being 'played out'. What might start out as a 'scoop' for the upwardly
mobile journalist is transformed into a by-word for a 'critical blogger' rewriting mainstream
reports by simply substituting negatives for pluses (or vice versa).
'Immediacy' trumps historical context and structural understanding. Protagonist or antagonists
of the moment are demonized , slandered and scandalized, or lauded , praised and iconized.
The practice of deep falsification involves magnifying transient trivia and glossing over world-historic
change. The false prophets substitute superficiality for deep understanding.
Soon after proclaiming a 'major systemic transformation', which fail to occur, a series of
modifications or reversals take over, and the initial 'great prophesy' is forgotten – as if the
readers of news were afflicted with an epidemic of dementia.
Most political parties, left, right and center, have their own unchanging warped world view
to frame everyday minutiae.
For example, on the Left, it is the 'imminent collapse of capitalism' or the 'perpetual stagnation
of the capitalist state', 'the collapse of democracy' or 'the emergence of fascism'. In the absence
of any real empirical or historical findings to support their hypotheses, they add escape clauses
about 'tendencies'.
The Center has its own historic narrative, which includes 'threats from the Left and Right',
and the 'dangers posed by populists to democratic values'. They cite the overwhelming responsibility
to 'defend Western values' everywhere, from threats, past, present and future and especially from
independent nations, like Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and other 'emerging' powers, as a pretext
to escalate militarism and to bolster support for vassal states.
The Center repeatedly point to the 'resilience of Western liberal democratic institutions'
even as police state edicts are dictated to counter dissenting voices, while false prophets predict
that China's robust economy is on the verge of collapse; that democratic Russia is an unstable
autocracy; and that the Ukraine is an emerging democracy – while its 'Right Sector' and 'Azov
Battalions' runs amok amidst a kleptocratic, neo-fascist regime
The Right frames its world-historic ideology by stressing the need to (1) revive the Cold War
to counter the US global decline; (2) confront the world-wide wave of 'populism' threatening 'liberal'
democracies; (3) portray Brexit as a sign of the European Union's collapse; (4) equate Trump's
victory with the rise of fascism in the US; (5) emphasize the ascent of bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism,
based on the result of a single election ; (6) denounce Leftists 'conspiracy' writers who 'falsely'
blame rising class inequalities to free-market monopolies; and (7) explain that cuts in social
expenditures, tax cuts to big capital, increased work hours and decreased pensions are ultimately
rewarding the masses.
These mega- narratives lead 'prophetic academics' to insist on their infallible insight into
the future direction of the world economy, global politics and class relations.
False prophets maintain a veneer of authenticity, by presenting the future in unspecified,
ambiguous, general and distant terms, to allow for any or all outcomes – like professional fortune
tellers.
Academic and media prophets are enveloped in a mystique of expertise, which allows them to
rehash yesterday's news as deep strategic insights.
False Prophets: Trump
Contrary to the wailings of the Right, Center and Left, Donald Trump is not a fascist, or a
nationalist or a populist. An objective assessment of his most recent policies and cabinet appointments
show that he is a free-market politician with a propensity to appoint militarists to security
positions.
Trump's populist demagogy most closely resembles President Obama – although the appeal is to
a different audience. Trump speaks to impoverished, displaced, skilled workers in the rust belt
with campaign promises of a renaissance in manufacturing, upscale suburbanites, and downwardly
mobile working women, while appointing billionaire bankers and global business executives to run
the economy and set policy. Obama appealed to poor minorities, middle class urbanites and the
same business elite.
Like Obama, Trump is an imperialist committed to protecting and projecting US global power.
He differs from Obama in emphasis. Obama and his predecessors pursued a primarily military-driven
imperialism while Trump will shift the emphasis to economic imperialism.
Trump's 'double discourse', of talking to the masses during the campaign while working for
the elite once in office, reflects a long-standing American Presidential tradition.
Editorial writers' descriptions of Donald Trump lack historical and empirical depth.
Powerful systemic constraints define the rate and scope of any long-term, large-scale changes
that Trump might propose. Trump can only introduce minor incremental changes in the behavior of
the biggest banks and five hundred most powerful global multi-nationals. Trump might re-negotiate
around the edges of some bilateral trade agreements, but he cannot convert the US into a closed
self-sufficient economy.
Contrary to the 'end of the world' hysteria, promoted by the mass media, Trump has never made
any pact with white racists and anti-Semites. There are no major Jewish organizations currently
engaged in a struggle against Trump's 'fascist hordes'. The KKK is not preparing to burn Goldman
Sachs. Since Trump's election the stock market has jump over a thousand points. Like all of his
predecessors from both parties, Trump appointed prominent Jews to key economic and policy positions,
including Treasury Secretary. Many editorialists, who rely on selected excerpts of campaign rhetoric
and gossip, have presented an unrealistic picture of the trajectory of the US state and economy.
ORDER IT NOW
False Prophets: China
The US prophets and self-described 'experts' describe China in inflated terms of either its
impending doom or its relentless drive toward world supremacy. They rely on the minutiae of the
moment or distorted extrapolations, uncertainties and contingent systemic changes. Rigorous analytical
accounts are in short supply.
China, according to the free-market financial prophets of doom, suffers from a declining growth
rate, shrinking work force, massive capital flight, deep-seated corruption and an impending intra-elite
war. According to the prophets of doom, this sets the stage for an economic collapse and a military
confrontation with the US empire.
Many of these pronouncements are easily dismissed. For the last 30 years, China's economy has
exceeded 6% and it is steadily developing its high technological work force and scientific innovations.
China's emphasis is on diversifying its production and consumption to domestic and overseas markets.
The challenge of its aging work force is met by the increasing development of robotics and computerized
productive systems.
China has applied capital controls and limits on capital flight. The national campaign against
corruption and real estate speculation in real estate has led to the arrest of over 200,000 officials
and executives for fraud, bribery and money laundering via overseas banks.
In other words, the false prophets, parading about as 'China experts', have consistently made
nonsensical predictions of doom and collapse. Faced with factual refutations, they merely repeat
and recycle their prophecies by projecting longer time frames, up to infinity, for the coming
of the inevitable catastrophe.
On the other hand, some progressive writers peddle prophesies of China's endless progress predicting
its inevitable emergence as a supreme global power. They convert China's 30-year pattern of economic
growth into a formula guaranteeing 'harmonious development', which they claim is based on China's
correct handling of emerging challenges and contradictions. Their predictions of stable future
growth assume ever-expanding markets while ignoring the threat of military confrontations with
rival imperial powers.
China's prophets of global power ignore contingencies: Skilled and innovative workers, who
are necessary for economic growth, have their own vision of the social structure in which they
play a leading role in advancing society.
While robots can substitute for human labor power, it is worker knowledge and initiative that
design, produce and adjust the robotic manufacturing system.
Harmony, free markets and mutually beneficial trade alliances are relations that are always
changing; only interests remain constant. As China moves from investing in commodities to manufacturing
and technology, customers can turn into competitors.
As China emerges as a global power, the outflow of capital and arms and technology increases,
and the risks of global rivalry and domestic instability, challenging the Chinese ruling class
likewise increase.
Prophecies or predictions depend on (1) the stability of incremental changes in the structure
of power; (2) the uncertainty of elite outcomes in world markets and (3) the volatility of domestic
class relations.
False Prophets: Latin America
Latin America is almost universally regarded as unstable – a region, where revolutions and
counter-revolutions alternate, and electoral regimes rise and fall among neo-liberal, populist
and nationalist leaders.
The long-term reality is actually quite different. Latin America has been one of global capitalism's
most stable regions. With few exceptions, property-ownership has remained stable for decades,
with entrenched oligarchical elite families enjoying wealth, multiple-luxury properties throughout
the world and their own perpetuation.
Electoral regimes may frequently change but the underlying state structures endure for decades.
Bureaucratic, military and financial institutions set the margins of change. Neo-liberal, post-neo-liberal
and anti-neo-liberal policies come and go, but large-scale mining, export agricultural and banking
structures ultimately set the conditions for the growth of economies and demise of governments.
There is a tendency for some academic prophets and writers to use metaphors from astronomy
and geology to divide the world. They describe a 'world-system' composed of 'a core, a semi-periphery
and a periphery'. Adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing quantities of productive resources,
the false prophets solemnly predict how the entire world system will function 'ad infinitum'.
While data, derived from observations in space, provide scientists with insights into the movements
of distant galaxies and the fate of planets, extrapolation to socio-economic and political 'bodies'
is risky.
On the real planet Earth, the so-called 'periphery' of the 'world system' subsumes countries,
economies, social structures, states and inter-state relations with entirely distinct composition,
behavior and histories. Cuba, a 'peripheral state', differs in every respect from Haiti, Guatemala
and scores of other likewise categorized nations. And among the 'core' countries, the US invades,
occupies and plunders dozens of countries every decade, while China engages in 'trade'. Iran,
among the 'semi-peripherals', has not invaded any neighbor for two centuries, while Israel, a
fellow 'semi-peripheral', has ravaged a dozen countries in the past 50 years.
ORDER IT NOW
False Prophets: Russia
Western prophets on the right and left predicted that the break-up of the USSR would augur
a period of harmony, democracy and widespread prosperity. The true believers claimed 'anything
was better than Stalinism' while ignoring the fact that Stalin was dead for a half-century.
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev oversaw the transformation of the USSR's allied nations
into pillaged satellites of the Western imperial powers. He blindly accepted US Presidents Bush
and Ronald Reagan's promises that the US would not expand NATO and would not transform the newly
emerging post-Soviet nations into military bases. What emerged was a crippled and encircled Russia,
which had been converted into a Beggar-State of oligarchs and swindlers who seized over a trillion
dollars of public property, wealth, land and resources in less than ten years. Gangsters murdered
their way into public office through US-manipulated sham elections, celebrated by the Western
press. Living standards for millions of post-Soviet citizens collapsed, resulting in the greatest
decline of life expectancy, health, culture, science and education in peacetime history.
Contrary to the predictions of Western prophets Russia rebuilt its state and economy. The new
political leadership, headed by Vladimir Putin, replaced the dipsomaniac puppet President and
mobsters favored by Washington. Living and health standards have vastly improved; production,
agriculture, exports, national security, science and culture have recovered.
The angry false prophets, then promoted a new pseudo-scientific assertion that the re-emergence
of the Russian state and its recovering economy led inexorably to autocratic rule by a former
KGB official, who violated 'Western values' by . jailing swindler billionaires and self-made oil
mobsters and re-appropriating vital national assets.
Western editorialists ceaselessly denounce the popularly elected President Putin for his crime
of refuting the bankruptcy of their prophecies.
Despite reams of reports by the 'experts', despite their wide circulation in the mass media
and their citations by top Western officials, the Russian state and economy, just like the Chinese,
are not on the verge of collapse nor are they declining or facing popular revolts.
False Prophets: The Left
The shallow, self-serving Left prophets of progressive governments in Latin America, as well
as admirers of Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China, fail to recognize the structural, historical
and class constraints that determine and limit policies.
First and foremost, they fail to recognize the socio-economic continuities within these states.
In all three regions, elites and oligarchs continue to control the commanding heights of the economies,
despite occasional expropriations and sporadic reforms.
Secondly, even the most 'progressive' regimes rely on Western markets and investors limiting
their long-term growth.
Thirdly, the long-term dependence on extractive exports, global demand and fragile mono-culture
economies weakens the long-term stability of Russia and Latin America.
The absence of a socialist democratic alternative to the brutal capitalist restoration in China
undermines the optimistic perspective of progressive prophets.
Conclusion
The debate among experts, regarding the rise or decline of the Imperial West or the progressive
forces in China, Russia and Latin America, fails to consider their 'hidden resources and liabilities'.
These include the untapped scientific discoveries, the failure to develop alternative resources
and innovations, as well as the ongoing repression of skilled workers. The Western prophets underestimate
how the reliance on the paper economy has squandered immense social and productive value.
The ongoing cultural deformations, perversions and falsifications of information and analysis
at the behest of established power centers, has clouded any real understanding of everyday life
and greatly reduced our chances for a future without barbaric wars and social exploitation.
Culture is an everyday phenomenon determining how economies and states, rulers and ruled see
the world, exercise power or are forced to submit.
We have witnessed the spread of cultural squalor into language and life, with only an occasional
respite, when people overcome their everyday stupor and create a momentary burst of creative political,
economic, social and cultural energy, which can lead to transformations.
Humdrum incremental changes, left and right, and the reality of continuities, limit and ultimately
reverse social reforms and corrupt language to serve the ruling powers. We must move forward against
the flatulence of everyday life by rejecting the false prophets and by writing, speaking and acting
against crackpot sages. Our progress toward a new order must be firmly rooted in our everyday
struggles writ large.
The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
By Glenn Greenwald
The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the
election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion
show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not
even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic
critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate
dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is
thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.
For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating
to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading
from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of
a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly
unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.
A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women;
as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The
New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage
point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in
an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the
74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."
Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and
the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political
and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this establishment revolt
in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:
STAGE 1
: Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really
wonderful that your views are being aired).
STAGE 2
: Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing
extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
STAGE 3
: Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that
they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling
(nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately
hurting their candidate's cause!).
STAGE 4
: Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by falsely
claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and male like
you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist,
pro-war approach).
STAGE 5
: Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls prove
the candidate is a credible threat (he's weak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy
associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
STAGE 6
: Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment
candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades,
perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).
STAGE 7
: Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations,
self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good
conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).
Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military
officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister).
The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is
now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa.
It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly criticize one another.
There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that
this will be done with aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just
human nature.
But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that are chosen, nor does
it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender
issues by Clinton supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly slimy
and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support Sanders spent months literally
pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female
Sanders supporters whose existence was nullified by those attacks).
People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by the bipartisan D.C.
establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative
to a candidate like Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street money,
who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political conviction seems to be that
anything is justifiably said or done to secure her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery
why adults in the U.K. were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating
Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their hands.
But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power, and will attack anyone
who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with
the emergence of Corbyn, and what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising
that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment prerogative is the same
- but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the script used in both cases.
Bill Clinton branded Jeremy Corbyn 'maddest person in the room', leaked speech reveals
By Joe Watts
Bill Clinton branded Labour's Jeremy Corbyn the "maddest person in the room" in a speech
he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.
Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won
his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just "got a guy off the street" to run the party.
He compared Mr Corbyn's rise to the success of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Bernie Sanders
in US primaries.
In one section of the speech, Mr Clinton said Labour had disposed of one potentially successful
leader, David Miliband, because they were "mad at him for being part of Tony Blair's government
in the Iraq War".
He went on: "They moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British
labor movement wanted it.
"When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion
that they lost because they hadn't moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically
got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party [sic]."
Mr Clinton added: "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek
election – when people feel they've been shafted and they don't expect anything to happen anyway,
they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them." ...
Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.
For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt
cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been
the main source of the most
breathless anti-Russian hysteria .
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential
campaign – was a
big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you
blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.
George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed
many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now
trying to ridicule
anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as
a Kremlin stooge.
Similarly, Jonathan Chait
championed
the Iraq war. And now
he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.
These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars
why should we listen to them now?
CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM
I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted
with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.
The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.
Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly
revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed.
It doesn't.
And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear
to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.
There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people
with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more,
had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect
than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't
stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct,
right. Thank God for ZH.
The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now
they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual
hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.
The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh
Head of the Beast.
Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but
to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate
Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by
soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?
Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell
the honest truth.
Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the
end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos
for its own sake.
There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US
foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals (
http://rightweb.irc-online.org )
They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay
attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government
and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that
even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are
at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.
thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and
Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of
us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh
ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake
news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now
is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy"
as president.
I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep
about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true,
faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.
Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed
by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled
to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny
with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.
Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.
well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative
journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.
they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays
better and it's more fun.
I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine
and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?
Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.
Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.
For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt
cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been
the main source of the most
breathless anti-Russian hysteria .
ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential
campaign – was a
big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you
blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.
George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed
many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now
trying to ridicule
anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as
a Kremlin stooge.
Similarly, Jonathan Chait
championed
the Iraq war. And now
he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.
These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars
why should we listen to them now?
CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM
I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted
with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.
The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.
Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly
revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed.
It doesn't.
And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear
to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.
There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people
with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more,
had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect
than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't
stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct,
right. Thank God for ZH.
The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now
they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual
hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.
The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh
Head of the Beast.
Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but
to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate
Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by
soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?
Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell
the honest truth.
Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the
end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos
for its own sake.
There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US
foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals (
http://rightweb.irc-online.org )
They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay
attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government
and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that
even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are
at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.
thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and
Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of
us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh
ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake
news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now
is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy"
as president.
I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep
about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true,
faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.
Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed
by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled
to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny
with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.
Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.
well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative
journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.
they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays
better and it's more fun.
I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine
and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?
Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.
"... This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up. ..."
"... After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose. ..."
"... Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex. ..."
"... Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that. ..."
"... Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy. ..."
"... Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China). ..."
"... Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't". ..."
"... It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ). ..."
Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare
sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
The US isn't going to release intelligence sources but it's really really easy to see who Russia
favored in the election and evidence of their efforts to influence it.
Exactly - even a moron (without a political agenda) will look at the publicly available information
and concluded that we are already past any "reasonable doubt".
Then there is all the additional material that simply cannot be released because it would help
the adversaries plug certain channels of counter intelligence.
It is a fact that the hackers were Russian. It is a fact that the only viable motive to release
that material the way it was (timed to inflict maximum damage on HRC) would be to lower the chances
of Hilary being elected. It is a fact that nobody in Russia would dare to challenge Putin's authority
and release this material without his knowledge.
However, tomorrow the great Orange will be informed about the facts and it will not make him
change his conclusion that the facts are wrong and he the great Trump and his great inside (from
Kremlin) sources have proven that it was not Russia. The Trump bobbleheads and associated clowns
will agree not because Trump had any evidence but because he told them what they wanted to hear.
Though for me the most compelling evidence was the simple observation that paid commenters
(with only moderate English speaking capability and no comment history, often from brand new Facebook
accounts) appeared with such frequency in comment sections of sites like WAPO and other major
news organizations, and the associated reporting with first person non-anonymous accounts of how
Russia ran farms for such paid comments.
The strangest part of this is how many useful idiots (in the classic sense) like Kervick exist
out there with various forms of apologetics for these actions.
This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites,
Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it;
David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated,
in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course
people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new
internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes
of various kinds in other countries. Grow up.
Not that one is short and just needs to plow into those Cheerios, but this is a parent speaking
to their child(ren), yes?
Deplorable(s).
This too, is part of the same exchange: not merely commander to commanded, but deaf to any other
view that might be characterized as a dialog between adults who are interested in the best path.
As if any dialog could take place between one person with a microphone and public relations team
on the command side and a flock of fans on the other, but I digress.
My favorite is "Suck it up Buttercup" at the sign of any resistance, or reluctance, or indifference
that might indicate you are nothin but a fading flower...sorta blows air in your face twice.
So Dan, I hear you and read most of your posts. And Sanjait's too. And both worth reading among
still others...my standards aren't terribly high.
Your note that the US does it too, might be the understatement of the year. And Sanjait's suggestion
that just as there is an adult-age limit there should be a senility limit too. As close as this
election was, the less capable adults (MCI is easily more than the 3M difference.) explains the
poor polls and the worse outcome.
Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely
open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are
traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff.
Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute
). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex.
So when they suggest that certain IPs signify Russian hacking they are insulting average computer
literate person intelligence.
There are some posters in this group who really understand this staff. I don't.
Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then
also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that.
And at the end of the day, the only credible charge is not that Russia hacked "the election",
but that they hacked John Podesta's email.
Anyway, it's water under the bridge. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the radical Republican Congress
have a reactionary legislative agenda all lined up, and Democrats have done close to squat to
build and articulate a clear, unified and compelling counter-agenda. They are off on a crazy Russian
goose chase. So the Republicans are probably going to pass a lot of their agenda, because Democrats
are putting nothing on the table.
Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders
and trying to put the focus on policy.
What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th
WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons
programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have
little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons
program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In
1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein.
(I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George
H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped
direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.
It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information
about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about
that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice
President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never
saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale
of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's.
The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide
a response to the vice president's office.
After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro
Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission
I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was
offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of
the United States government.
In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in
the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was
much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze,
I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting
sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit,
leaving only their eyes visible.
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that
are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business.
I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of
uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.
Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been
in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current
government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium
business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction
had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult
for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair
and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the
government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which
in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the
two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the
approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's
simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired....
Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995.
If you have Ph.D you should really be ashamed writing such nonsense.
Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially
Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to
normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge
in Russia relations with China).
Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't".
It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads
legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains
remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ).
Or do you really think that Bolton in State Department is different from Victoria Nuland?
"... The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." ..."
"... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
"... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
"... Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed. ..."
"... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
"... There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. ..."
"... Putin obviously has something on Trump ..."
"... I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. ..."
"... The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". ..."
"... While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" ..."
"... this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
The U.S. government is creating a new $160 million bureaucracy to shut down information that
doesn't conform to U.S. propaganda narratives, building on the strategy that sold the bloody Syrian
"regime change" war, writes Rick Sterling.
The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical
foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now
have the "
Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
" that President Obama signed into law on
Dec. 23 as part of the
National
Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that
challenges Official Washington's version of reality.
... ... ...
The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center
"to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand,
expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining
United States national security interests." The law directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and
to share expertise among agencies and to "coordinate with allied nations."
The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around
the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative
that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and
innocent lives."
The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges
a new McCarthyism
about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with
a new Orwellianism
by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to
protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center
to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among
Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best
practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology
companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as
purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news."
)
Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for "
strategic communications
" and "
public diplomacy
" were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government
approach leveraging all elements of national power."
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the
world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free
claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the
U.S. election.
Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the
mainstream U.S. news media - there is
little or no public evidence
to support the charges. There is also a contradictory
analysis
by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
and an associate,
former British
Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream
U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new
"Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.
Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip
Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda"
and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news
blowing back into the American media.
In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula
with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy
supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and
false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's
strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new
legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot.
... ... ...
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area
and can be reached at [email protected]
Skip Scott ,
January 1, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Here comes the Ministry of truth.
War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength
Big Brother is watching us.
Abe , January 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm
The information war against reputable independent investigative journalism has been in full
swing for years. $160 million is just the latest shake of piddle.
In addition to the army of paid journalists in mainstream media, "pro-democracy" and "human
rights" NGOs, and assorted limited hangouts we are all too familiar with, there is the new Propaganda
3.0 species of "open source intelligence" scammers, bogus "independent researchers", and corporate-funded
fake "citizen investigative journalists" like Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat, all busily churning
out fake news.
Uncritical journalists have ignored the deeper layer of deception underlying the Washington
Post / PropOrNot imbroglio.
Some "useful idiots" have gone so far as to actively promote the illusion that Bellingcat and
other PropOrNot "Related Projects" are "professional" information sources.
In reality, Google-funded Bellingcat is directly allied with the Washington Post and New York
Times, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the Google's
new Ministry of Truth: The First Draft Coalition "partner network".
Note that it was the Washington Post that catapulted PropOrNot to prominence.
True independent investigative journalism is the declared enemy of Google's new Minitrue.
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Propaganda 3.0 coalition has already demonstrated
its ability to "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification
process" of Western propaganda narratives.
The devil's hands are very busy.
Peter Loeb , January 2, 2017 at 6:44 am
MUST READ .
Tom Anderson: THE DIRTY WAR ON SYRIA
(Global Research, 2016)
(Available at Amazon and probably elsewhere.)
This well documented book explores the arguments presented in Rick Sterling's excellent article above in detail. The book is in defense
of Syria.It includes many references (in English), most available on line.
---------
NOTE: See requests elsewhere in the Defense Appropriation Act of 2017. As always, an APPROPRIATION of amounts is required.
-------
A basic issue can be raised involving any commitment of the next President of the United States to policies of this
Administration and Congress. It is well-known that Donald Trump has not previously shared many of the views on which this
legislation is based.
Senator John McCain, primary sponsor, D-Ariz, does share these views. It needs reminding that that being said, much
of this GOP interest was under the assumption that Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion.
Though Senator McCain is the sole sponsor of the entire bill in his role as Chairman of the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, many Democrats joined in the many amendments. were co-sponsored by Democratic
Senators.
Regarding Syria, many of the issues are dealt with in Tom Anderson's book noted above.
--Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Linda Doucett , January 1, 2017 at 11:28 pm
a lot of Soros schills on this thread :)
exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm
That is it exactly. The yankee regime has gone over into fascist control of the narrative.
Erstwhile "leftists" like Amy Goodman have jumped the shark and joined the imperialist propaganda
push. Even the ACLU is sponsoring islamofascists like Khisr Khan, who is an apologist for el qaeda
spouting that the Iraq war, a war crime by any objective definition, was 'in defense of constitutional
values. Since courts no longer hold the regime accountable, the fact this is blatantly unconstitutional
and contrary to the rule of law does not seem to mean much. Hopefully, the new administration,
despite the reputation of its leadership, will be less autocratic in practice. As far as I'm concerned,
they all have jumped the shark and the last shreds of legitimacy have disappeared. The entire
existing regime and its acolytes are war criminals and traitors to the rule of law.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 12:56 pm
You don't watch Democracy Now much. I've seen all points of view presented there. Perhaps you
should examine with a more open mind. I never supported getting involved in Syria but there was a lot of pressure to do so. It was a
big mistake. The history I know says that climate change had much to do with what happened there.
A severe drought made conditions untenable for the farmers and they started to revolt. Assad handled
what was happening very badly. It was a terrible situation. Assad wan't going to help them but
he generally had the support of the rest of the people. Getting involved there was stupid. There
was no way for intervention to be successful unless it was humanitarian like helping them to help
the farmers Of course intervention is seldom humanitarian and when it is, it's seen as weak an
ineffective by the powerful forces that oppose it.
There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly
disappointed in the end. Putin obviously has something on Trump and you should be shouting for
his tax returns so we can understand that relationship. We know he's received a lot of money from
Russia. Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship. No one wants to
hear it.
Bill Cash- "We know he's [Trump} received a lot of money from Russia."
There is possibly a malicious insinuation here. Was that to support Trump's political campaign,
or was that from business deals – which Trump has in any number of countries?
Bill Cash- "Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship
[Trump/Russia]."
Include me in your "everyone". If you mean Corn's article in Mother Jones, it is not "research"
but forwarded innuendos.
As to whether anyone will be "bitterly disappointed" with Trump, that is beside the point –
many of us are deeply concerned with other possible aspects of the coming administration. I am
just glad to see Trump or any prominent US political commentator buck the knee-jerk attempt to
blame Russia for our own troubles. Jerks like that can be hazardous to our health and possibly
our continued existence.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm
You think climate change is a problem? Trump thinks it's a hoax. Will climate change provoke
many Syria's around the world? Is Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich?
Putin obviously has something on Trump which all of you are ignoring. Now Trump is saying he knows
more about hacking than everyone else. There's too much in that relationship to be ignored but
you are ignoring it and it will come back to bite us. Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. That should really help the country.
Enjoy Trump while you can. Keep protecting him.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 2:44 pm
What proof do you have that Putin has "something" on Trump? It could be that Trump sees opportunities
for business with Russia if there are improved relations. Russia has a lot of natural resources
waiting to be exploited. The military/security/industrial complex is at odds with that idea because
they need their boogeyman.
And why does it always have to be one or the other between Hillary and the Donald? I think
they both suck. My only hope is that he disrupts the power of the deep state warmongers and cleans
house at the CIA And even there, it is only a hope. I am not blindly optimistic.
I doubt there are many of us here at Consortium news that are enjoying or protecting Trump,
but Hillary would have been a disaster as well. Bill Cash is blind not to see that. There was
no lesser of two evils in this election, just two different evils.
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:15 pm
Get Trump to release his tax returns. Why is he afraid to do that? There is something there
h doesn't want us to see. We know he's received a lot of money from Russia, That's well documented and Putin doesn't allow
that without strings. We know he's had dealings with both the mafia and the Russian mob.
You should be screaming for his tax returns but instead you assume his innocence. You know nothing about me. I do believe Hillary would be better because she believes in global
warming but I was a Bernie supporter. If you know anything about Trump, you know he only acts to help himself, for his own enrichment.
If you don't know that, I can't talk to you. You'd have to give me examples of him ever thinking
outside himself. There has to be something in the Putin relationship that's good for Trump.
Get his tax returns!!!!!
Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Heh, I'm Russian from Russia. 1. Russia is not building any ministry of truth, many western
channels like France 24, BBC, EuroNews and Fox News are part of standard cable TV package here
(at least in Moscow and other major cities). 2. Not sure what image you have of our president,
but blackmailing leaders of other states is America's thing, that's not what Russians do (we send
tanks, threaten or negotiate) – you should stop thinking the whole world acts the same way America
does. 3. I doubt Trump got money from Russia, at least not more than Clinton got from Saudi Arabia
and others, including Ukraine (the latter donated about US$30 million, the former could have donated
up to US$500 million // could you name the amount given by Russia to Trump, which you speak about?).
Anyway, is it really okay that future American president are for sale internationally, regardless
if it's Trump or Clinton? 4. I doubt Russians hacked you since there's still no single proof (What
CIA says and "everyone knows" is not a proof. If you like this type of justice, I suggest you
abolish your whole legal system and replace it with Lynch courts). 5. Lastly, you suggest that
the U.S. s almost uninvolve din Syria. Is it really so? Who are you supplying weapons to then?
Turkish president (Turkey is still NATO member, ally of the U.S.) said he has proof U.S. is supporting
terrorists, mainly ISIL and Al Quaida. Al Quaida were the guys who organized 9/11. I hope you're
proud to be American and of Obama and Clinton.
Blah x3: that was beautiful. It makes me so sick to my stomach that these things can be said
about my country and that I know they are true. For years I blamed the FBI. Or Nixon. Or Ronnie,
or Col. North and Iran Countra, or the Rethugs. Or the CIA Or DIck and Bush. But when Hillary
tried to force herself down our throats in a kind of female felacio (sorry, don't know how to
spell that) and Thomas Frank went after Slick Willy with a cleaver and Matt Taibbi exposed Obama's
financial machinations and Little Debbie Shitz kneecapped the progressives, I finally saw what
the world has been seeing for decades. I love my country, and all I was taught she stood for,
and I know you love your country and her amazing history. I don't like Trump, but if he's the
poison it takes to heal my country so we can get along with yours, here's to poison. Dos vee donya.
( terrible speller. Sorry)
Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 11:57 pm
Trump and climate change = Trump an ignoramus. Hillary and Obama on climate change equaled lots of grand speech-making, no effective actions.
I don't see a significant difference here. And at least in theory, ignorance can be corrected
more easily than cynical indifference chasing the easy money..
Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich? That's right. Hillary and the TPP meant government would be handed to corporations.
Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. Probably. Obama was itching for 8 years to strike a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to dismantle Social
Security. If I was to waste time looking at Hillary and Social Security, I'd expect to find weasel
lawyer talk giving her the same leeway.
Putin obviously had something on Trump. Is this in the same class of "reality" as the Russians
obviously stealing the 2016 election and preparing to destroy the electrical systems in Vermont?
David Corn: I looked at his archives at Mother Jones. He was always frothing at the mouth against
whoever it was who was in the lead in the Republican primary. Mention of Hillary was always a
side factor except in one piece which had this title.
You Go to War With the Hillary Clinton You Have
I examined the piece, and found it summarizes as 'the woman isn't worth a crap, but she's all
we've got.' Corn was a little more explicit about Hillary's faults in 2008. From one of his pieces
then:
I, too, have huffed about Obama's staffing decisions. It remains a mystery to me why Obama
would want to bring into his Big Tent the Clinton circus, which frequently features excessive
spin, backstabbing, leaking and messy melodrama. Sen. Clinton is a smart woman who has stature
and globetrotting experience. But as health-care czar in her husband's administration, she set
back that cause, which is near and dear to the hearts of progressives, by nearly two decades.
That's right – Hillary wasn't worth a crap back in 2008 either, only back then Corn was a bit
more truthful. I've seen that with others – in their 2008 blog posts they were doing to Hillary
what they're doing to Trump now – making an all-out assault. How those people convinced themselves
that 2008 totally evil Hillary was transformed into 2016 Saint Hillary still confounds me.
exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Trump, if he proves as bad on climate change as feared, can be reversed. If the harpy had gotten
in, she would have said the right words on climate change, but put policies via the "trade pacts"
under extra-legal corrupt corporate arbitration courts who would have been able to sideline the
rule of law in this area and would have established an irreversible corporate regime on climate
change. Since courts long ago ceased to hold to rule of law standards basing their decisions on
extra-legal state secrets and anti-free-speech considerations, and since such extra-legal "trade
pacts" have not even been questioned in US courts, the reality is that this would have meant the
end of serious climate change work. This seems to me to be much more concerning than Trump's rhetoric
on climate change issues, since, whatever the talk, the factual result of the policy would have
been far more odious.
Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm
" There's a real love fest for Trump on this site "
Me thinks you infer what we do not imply!
D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm
I watched Democracy Now for over a decade–until recently. I tried to tolerate its bias on Syria
and wrote to the site several times to no avail. Coverage of Syria was consistently a fairy tale
of Assad the evil Hitler versus the good rebels–essentially a Washington Post view. This program
has declined. I'm sorry to say it. It is now so unreliable I can no longer watch it. I believe
the writer here is accurate and fair on this evaluation.
Gregory Kruse , January 2, 2017 at 11:02 am
That's what happens when a site has "Democracy" in its name. The term no longer has any coherent
meaning.
JohnMMorgan , January 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm
I agree, the role Democracy Now played in paving the way for the destruction of Libya and now
Syria is shameful. Given how divided the left is on Syria, the least DN could and should have
done is have weekly debates between top advocates of the different narratives to expose their
listeners to both sides. Instead they gave constant repetition of the official propaganda line
with only very rarely a little of the other side.
On U.S., Russia and Ukraine it has been more like DN has been MIA.
I think it is entirely appropriate for Rick Sterling to challenge DN in this excellent article.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm
There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly
disappointed in the end.
I read Consortium News practically every day, but somehow I missed the "love fest" comments.
Can you share an example or two. There were several articles clearly exposing Hillary Clinton's
defects, but it would take lots of stretching of points to interpret them as pro-Trump. I and
others have made comments along the lines of "when it comes to Clinton and Trump there is no lesser
evil." I don't recall anyone challenging comments like that.
Similarly, I and others have made the point that we might escape Hillary Clinton's frying pan
but we will land in Donald Trump's fire. Or, another version, we might have dodged Hillary Clinton's
bullet but Donald Trump will be the price we will have to pay.
Putin obviously has something on Trump
In this bizarre era of world politics that may or may not be true. It is, however, unlikely
to be obvious either way to many visitors to this site. Can you share what causes you to believe
it is obvious?
Gregory Herr , January 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm
Severe drought and sanctions that go back to the Bush Administration certainly created some
economic hardships. But the conflict in Syria is hardly the outgrowth of a farmers' revolt. The
people of Syria are generally educated and politically astute. Naturally occurring political activity
not unlike what we sometimes see here in the States (with "movements" such as Occupy) did not
have an insurrectionist flavor and few Syrian citizens had armed revolt in mind. Many were simply
keen for Assad to step up the pace of the political reform he was a part of. The armed "revolt"
that you somehow think Assad handled badly was managed by foreign provocateurs. Assad and the
Syrian Arab Army and the Russian Air Force have been protecting the citizens of Syria from vile
terrorist mercenaries.
John P , January 1, 2017 at 6:54 pm
In support of some your comments Bill Cash, see – Putin's friendly response to the expulsion
of his US diplomats – shown on the British Independent newspaper site. In it they state: "The President-elect's nomination of Rex Tillerson, chief of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State,
will if confirmed mean that Putin has someone whom he knows well, and has personally awarded the
Russian Order of Friendship, in charge of US foreign policy. As for his own business interests,
he signed an agreement last summer (just one, it should be said, of several attempts to do so)
to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."
Also interesting to read is Mondoweiss: "Why Obama waited 8 years to take on Netanyahu"
Happy New year everybody and lets hope we don't get Trumped --
I find this idea that better relationships between the US and Russia would be bad for Central
and Western Europe very strange. Of course, there are a few neocon hawks in Europe, as well, but
mostly, Europeans are very sceptical about strongly anti-Russian US policies in recent years (in
many European countries US power and influence is seen as a similar or bigger threat than Russia,
see
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/
). US pressure was needed for the EU to pass sanctions against Russia (of course, Poland and
Angela Merkel were in favor, but since there is little popular support for these sanctions outside
Poland and the Baltic states, that would hardly have sufficed without US pressure). In Europe,
the simplified, dumbed-down presentations of conflicts like the one in Ukraine that are meant
to use such complex situations for a one-sided demonization of Russia are less widely accepted.
I think there are far more Europeans who saw the constant US pressure for worsening relationships
with Russia as a significant threat than people who think that a rapprochement of the US and Russia
would be dangerous. Of course, there are a few very vocal European journalists who belong to "Atlantic" neocon associations
who will scream when someone threatens to ease tensions with Russia, but they only represent a
very small part of Europeans.
Vera , January 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Now we will really get a "taste" of fake news
Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes
the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing
expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources,
and implementing best practices ." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals
that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet
sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news.")
I suspect "best practices" will include more than simply blocking the alternative information
sites like this and Naked Capitalism and the others on the BS PROPORNOT list. Expect other schemes
to be tried, each one with effectively unlimited funding.
They're going to do what the murderous twit George "dumbya" Bush spoke of:
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for
the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
I and many others voted for Obama in 2008 because of our utter disgust with the Texas Torturer.
The master psychologists who selected Obama knew that would happen, and his fancy talking along
with his black skin caused some people I KNEW were racists to vote for him too – just to prove
to themselves they weren't. ( a task eased by the alternative of McCain and Palin)
Obama has his fingerprints all over the endless crap discussed in this splendid essay, and
the sooner people recognize he is a Bush-Level President the better.
My main complaint about the essay at the link is that at the end of it author Eric Zuesse was
still in a "defense" mode for the disaster which has been the Obama years.
doray , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm
The cartoon that should result from this action would be to show Obama and every member of
Congress who voted for this insanity taking a giant steaming dump on the First Amendment. We have
arrived at the Fourth Reich. Will they just block the alternative news, or criminalize those who try and post it?
:: wherefore does your sincerity lie? sincerity in heart is truth.
stan , January 1, 2017 at 2:16 pm
You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf to learn the power and techniques of war propaganda. I
started watching the propaganda in 1989 when George Bush Sr. invaded panama to capture his buddy
Noriega. There was a story about how the U.S. military had found womens panties and cocaine in
Noriegas hideout. After he was captured and reporters asked for proof of this, the U.S. military
said they could not find the underwear in question and the cocaine turned out to be baking soda.
Of course it was all fabrication.
During the leadup to the bombing of Iraq in 1991, the story was that the Iraqi soldiers had
gone in a hospital and thrown babies out of their incubators "onto the cold hard floor". Of course,
this was a total lie also. Even our president kept repeating it, so he was either stupid or lying.
Guess which.
But these are the stories to incite the murderous rage of a people, and prevent people from
questioning the attack. When you hear of the smear – someone hiding in a "spider-hole", or someone
caught trying to sneak away wearing women's clothing, then you know it is part of the smear campaign
and a total lie. It is just a smear, which psychologically makes you not protest the attack, because,
well, it could be true, and who wants to stand up in public to protect a sex pervert or a coward.
But the real power of propaganda is in controlling the narrative. Here is the true narrative
of our murderous rampage in the middle east.
The wars of the U.S. are the empires fighting over control of territory, with all of the benefits
and privileges thereof – take the resources, collect taxes, and control terms of commerce and
trade to benefit yourself. Big wars begin when empires fall. This also happens when an elephant
falls in the jungle. The lions, hyenas, vultures, etc. all try to grab a piece. Governments do
this too, as do crime syndicates and mobsters. Mobsters are always trying to muscle in on the
territory of other gangs, and police know that when a powerful mobster falls, there will be wars
between the gangs fighting for turf and control of territory and markets.
The U.S. began the destruction of Iraq with the murderous bombing of that country as soon as
the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This attack was planned and prepared for during the Regan
military buildup of the 1980s. The U.S. knew the soviet union was going to fall, and they prepared
for it. It was decided to "pivot" from the U.S. military defeat in southeast asia to begin an
invasion of southwest asia. Zbigniew Brezinsky was the architect of the plan to destablize Afghanistan.
The U.S. military would not have done that without a follow up plan, and it takes years to plan
and prepare an armada for an invasion. In the time since, we have basically invaded and militarily
conquered the middle east, africa, southwestern asia and parts of the old soviet union in eastern
europe. It is a war between empires (very large business syndicates). All the day-to-day happenings
are trivial irrelavancies in terms of reasons for U.S. foreign policy and military actions. Our
future foreign policy to again invade asia was decided before 1980. Think of the president as
the CEO, and the board of directors tells him what to do. The board of directors has not changed.
backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 5:46 pm
stan – very good post!
Dwight , January 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm
Amnesty International lent its name to the incubator baby propaganda, playing an important
role in helping Bush Sr. get Senate approval for the 1991 Gulf War. Amnesty International along
with Human Rights Watch also played an important role in legitimizing the 1999 Kosovo war by timely,
uncritical, and grossly irresponsible parroting of claims about killings at the village of Racak.
Fritz , January 1, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hate to say: 'well said', generally, because it implies that I am in a position to give you
a grade, like a teacher would.
But here I must say "well said" to your post --
Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm
"the Ministry of Truth!" Yes indeed, Mr. Sterling, that's what we're seeing here. The stench
of hypocrisy wafting from the East is overwhelming, isn't it? To boot Obama signed this bit of
government overreach on my birthday claiming this legislation is to protect "national security
interests" and "to protect the American people from 'foreign propaganda' and disinformation."
Most U.S. citizens know that politicians tell whoppers on the campaign trail. Remember
in 2008 when heroic Hillary told about arriving in Bosnia "under a hail of bullets"? That never
happened!
No surprise she supports the bill. "Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's
imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our
democracy, and innocent lives." Let's understand what the lady means by "our democracy." She refers
to the democracy of the few, the political elites in cahoots with Wall Street who meet behind
a curtain to decide U.S. policy. Anyway, as long as we look to "leaders" we'll continue to live
in a hierarchy based in money and power–and that is not a democracy! Innocent lives? No,
this bill protects the guilty from public scrutiny.
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among
the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free
claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence"
the U.S. election.
O yea! the irony is palpable. One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts"
appointed by the government will train prospective journalists. Gee, you mean we don't already
have that with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC? The term "The Fourth Estate" for a free and open press dates
back to Edmond Burke in 1875. Of course all along those in power have worked overtime to propagate
our own citizens, but the idea of government-trained journalists is a slap in the face to "freedom
of the press." All of us who post our fact-based opinions qualify as press. From now on, however,
a journalist must have a stamp of approval from the government!
On another not-so "fake news" site I found an article by a retired professor well versed in
computer language. Dr. Spring challenges the Russian hacking story, but I don't know enough to
understand it all Some of you might.
Kent – re competing pipelines. I used to think that was the main reason for the war in Syria.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article entitled "Syria: Another Pipeline War". I'm sure the pipeline
from Qatar up through Syria is part of the reason, but another poster commented that he didn't
buy this, mainly because the pipeline could have gone up through Iraq and then across Turkey.
I looked at a map and, yes, he was correct. It would cost more money, but could easily have been
done. No, he contended that there was a much greater reason for the war: Israel.
Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm
I'm leaving you something to read see link below, where the author talks about an energy alliance
between Turkey, Israel, and Russia is being discussed between these three countries. The U.S.
is not included in these discussions.
Personally I have thought for quite awhile now that this Middle East American NATO driven war
has been more about destabilizing Israel's neighbors (Yinon Plan, Clean Break), as opposed to
routing energy pipelines.
Excellent info there,Joe. Demonstrating once again that Putin is a far better, more creative,
and less deluded strategic thinker than our best and brightest. I suspect that Turkey's turn toward
a Russian alliance on the energy front is sparked the CIA's (failed) Gulenist coup attempt last
summer.
And of course Israel is always Israel.
The recent bizarre assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by the 'security' guy
yelling 'this is for Aleppo' was also a tell regarding the US's support, arming, and funding of
the proxy mercenaries Daesh/Isis/al Nusra/al Quaeda.
Losing's a bitch, especially when it requires treason and you STILL lose. The Masters of the
Universe take a hit and I actually see a small glimmer of hope in that.
Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 12:41 pm
Yes the deception and intrigue makes one get dizzy trying to figure out who is really behind
all of it. The U.S. needs a new strategy, but it fails to acknowledge it, and with that nothing
will change for the good.
Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:51 am
BWE- True enough about the alternate route, through the new and improved 'Kurdistan' but that
would have still left the Syrian/Russian legal alliance in place as a competitor for EU business.
I also think that since Syria was 'on the list' from the get/go, our 'thinkers' in the MI$S
complex Mafia weren't creative enough to pivot and adapt. Plus, it would have still left competition
noted above.
CitizenOne , January 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm
I was watching the news. It is all about the Russians. The Expulsions, the sanctions, the democrats
and the republicans are united against their common enemy the Russians. More sanctions are on
the way. If a family member recently passed away you can be assured the Russians murdered them!
Why don't they just declare war with Russia and get all the niceties over and done so we can get
right down to the war?
Nowhere in this uni-polar single topic narrative of how Russia and Russia alone rigged the
election is there a mention of any possible other source of influence on the election. What about
the glacially paced multi year investigation into Benghazi? What about Comey's October Surprise
with Anthony Wiener's Laptop? What about any other foreign power? What about voter ID laws? What
about gerrymandering? What about black box voting? What about Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon
vs. FEC and dark money in politics?
These are just some of the things that have dominated all the previous narratives before now
on how elections might be rigged minus the foreign hacks by the Russians which was never a concern.
Now, all those things are forgotten. Never happened, not a problem. All washed away in an instant
with an entirely new theory out of a clear blue sky. The one single question posed by the politicians
and the media might just as well be why are we not loading weapons on boats and planes, dropping
them off all along Russia's borders and reinstating the draft right now?
There is a word for this. This is Propaganda. The law is a perversion of its alleged purpose
of defense of the truth by claiming it will weed out lies. It actually seeks to preserve complete
control of the narrative a.k.a., propaganda by shutting out anyone else with a different opinion.
They need to go after foreign sources because obviously, there is no need for worry or concern
that our domestic media might actually do its job. It is clearly already deep inside the belly
of the beast.
Mr. Obama has 20 days left and they cannot possibly go by fast enough as he salts the political
landscape in order to tie the incoming administrations hands.
This has to be one of the scariest and damnable things Obama signed into law. Hopefully, it
will shortly be rescinded but it seems even the republicans like Mitch McConnell are all on board
with preserving the military industrial complex at all costs. War is their stock and trade and
there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The Defense Industry needs enemies not friends.
What we are seeing is the Neo-Con Cabal wringing their hands with anxiety that the next war
with Russia might be on hold and doing everything they can to make that happen. This is what Eisenhower
warned us about. But it is an old problem.
Here are some quotes:
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for
the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era
of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated
in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was
assassinated.
The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of
adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than
bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon
its crimes.
Abraham Lincoln
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated.
The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to
be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in
the world – no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote
of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men .
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of
the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody,
are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so
watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their
breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)
The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a pluto-democracy; that
is, a sham republic with the real government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealth
men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today, radiates to every corner
of the United States.
William McAdoo – President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years
(1974)
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create
for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that
glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a
world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist
fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in
frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International
Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central
banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government
by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level
of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic
rewards in the business world.
Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope
In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive .Control
of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most
powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions
of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.
Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank
for International Settlements .The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury
Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial
power independent of and above the Government of the United States .The United States under present
conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming
and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.
Rep. Louis McFadden – Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the
New York Times (June 1930)
backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm
CitizenOne – great post!
D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:18 pm
Thank you for this excellent analysis. Particularly disturbing to me is the success of the
propaganda in places I wouldn't expect it, as with Democracy Now, and my neighbors, who seem decent,
intelligent people, but entirely done in by the false impressions. I have the feeling the critical
views expressed here and in this excellent Consortium site, plus similar sites, represent a small
minority of the American public? Or is an awakening in progress causing this newest repressive
move, a growing skepticism threatening "national security"? I did read a comment somewhere that
fifty percent of the American public is not taken in by the current Russia blaming, but I don't
know if this is true.
junius , January 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm
How about Rolling Stone's October article praising Hillary Clinton as a champion of feminism?
I just cancelled my subscription to the New Yorker because the quality of its great cartoons no
longer outweighs the ugly rightward shift in its editorial policy.
We seem to be witnessing the completion of the project begun a century ago this year, in 1917,
with the establishment of the Committee on Public Information. Also known as the Creel Commission,
it was the government agency tasked with convincing the American people that it was a good idea
to support one faction in Europe's Great War and to take arms against the other. As laughably
naive as that propaganda effort seems now, it was the beginning of the end of independent journalism,
which in truth had always been on shaky ground in this country. The Founders were among the most
cynical of men. It's not hard to picture them laughing in their sleeves over the farcical First
Amendment for well they knew from colonial experience that the "freedom" to publish belongs only
to those who can afford the price of a printing press, ink, and paper, and who, most importantly,
curry favor from government and business. It remains to be seen what effect the internet will
have – and how easily it can be silenced
Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:20 pm
I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under
Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. As Bernie said, he's a pathological liar.
Whatever benefits
Trump determines what he will say. Look under the covers and you find Steve Bannon who runs the
trump campaign. If you think the propaganda is bad now, wait until he's in control.
Trump isn't the answer and we need his tax returns. I can see him creating an alliance with Putin
and undermining Western Europe.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:49 pm
I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better
under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale.
Bill Cash: I'm with you on this point, but your reasoning above in other posts was very sloppy
making facts out of speculation. Speculation, even if it is plausible, does not qualify as fact.
I also agree with other commentators suggesting Trump will probably make Obama look good despite
negative opinions of Obama.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 4:23 pm
How would creating an alliance with Putin undermine western Europe? You are right that I don't
know much about you, but I am with Bill Bodden that you are guilty of shoddy reasoning. As for
Global warming, I am sure that it is a serious problem. But Hillary's foreign policy would have
had me concerned about nuclear winter. And Hillary is a pathological liar who thinks only of herself
and talks out both sides of her mouth. And she is a slave to the deep state and wall street. I
think you are dead right about Trump's character, but I think you may be underestimating much
of the horrors of the Clintons. How about foreign alliances via the Clinton Foundation- it's pay
to play scenario, and the possible impacts on foreign policy? Look at the utter mayhem in the
Middle East and the refugee crisis in Europe. Hillary would have promised us more of the same
as president.
I was a Bernie supporter as well, but he lost me when he gave up the fight.
Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 1:20 am
Skip–Bernie didn't give up the fight. He did what he had promised to do and supported the nominee.
In other words, he kept his word, even tho it clearly cost him. You abandoned him when the fight
became tough, when it wasn't so glamorous, when it shifted over to the hard slog of grassroots
organizing and door to door work for some school board member–you know, the kind of work Stokley
Charmicheal did for years to help build the Panthers. Don't blame Bernie for your lacking of true
heart. It's you.
Skip Scott , January 2, 2017 at 9:00 am
When Bernie discovered proof thru wikileaks that the DNC was actively working against him,
he should have fought for the nomination at the convention, instead of caving to all the corruption
(super delegates, etc etc.) If he had failed there, he could have topped the green party ticket
with Jill Stein to run as VP. Then he would have succeeded in blowing up the entirely corrupt
two party system, if nothing else. He would have had the 15% to make the national debates. He
may have even won. Where was the slog of grassroots organizing after he quit the fight? It's come
to naught. I had the true heart to stay with him if he hadn't caved. Bernie even supported some
faux democrats against genuine progressive greens in down ballot races. This is not a game, it's real life. It is time for people
to stand strong for the issues they care about.
Brad Owen , January 2, 2017 at 10:44 am
I agree Skip. Bernie was the man of the hour. He had the perfect tool to smash the two-party/Wall
Street/deep state Establishment: millions of independent citizen donors. Then he threw it all
away to actively campaign for the queen of chaos and the Establishment War Party. I was so disgusted
and mad that I went Green and never looked back. I now donate 10$ a month, every month, to the
Greens hoping to see recreated the Tool that Bernie threw away (and still trying to lasso to the
D-side of the Establishment War Party): millions of independent citizens donating 10$ or 20$ a
month to the Green Party to build up a war chest to challenge both wings of the Establishment
War Party.
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm
Certainly Trump should not be trusted, among the two very bad (in my view) candidates, I considered
Trump the greated evil for domestic US policy, but probably the lesser evil in foreign policy
compared to Hillary Clinton's more aggressive neocon policies.
I think the demonization of Russia and the presentation of the Russian government as a big
threat also has to do with the goal of keeping a strong US influence in Western Europe – and for
supporting the influence of US-linked European interest groups. But I doubt that this is going
to work. It might work on the US public, but apart from Poland and the Baltic states, demonizing
Russia is much more difficult in Europe, and the percentage of people who know more about the
conflicts in which Russia is involved than the simplified depictions that are popular in the US
is probably much bigger.
You do realise who owns that news paper you are quoting. It's owned by the Ledbedev family who are oligarchs in the fine tradition. Stole money ran
to the west claiming persecution by Putin. It's an anti Putin paper. They are purely online now as the print version of the paper ceased
to make a profit.
The only writers worth reading are Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn
Kalen , January 1, 2017 at 3:23 pm
Just a note for DN lovers. Since before 2008 the Pacifica Fundation running DN was taken over by Goldman Sachs. Many local stations rebelled and were cut off from money, forcing them into turmoil and like
KPFA and KPFK throwed the management off, cut the fat and went fully listener funded. All that while GS bought Amy Goodman a new TV studio with audience who after the show for $2000
had a chance to go to dinner with Amy.
All in the midst of 2008 ensuing collapse. When DN subsequently ignored Puerto Rico general strike and a quarter million street demonstration. I stopped watching and listening DN on radio after 15 years.
The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed
to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job".
The problem for the Police State is even if there is only one person left to speak truth to their
lies. that truth will need to be snuffed out. It will take a lot more than $160,000,000.
Tristan , January 1, 2017 at 3:27 pm
This article does well to point out the impending doom of our intellectual discourse regarding
the nature of the U.S. gov't and its relationship with the citizenry. Already the citizens of
the U.S. are more commonly referred to as consumers, thus it follows that the more equal of the
equal should control what the consumers are fed.
The dystopian nature of free market globalized capitalism is now finding, or is near to, the
apex of what capitalism unfettered can accomplish. Resulting in the frantic "marketing" that this
form of capitalism relies on to "sell" itself as the only way to survive this ugly planet. War
is the product, propaganda is the marketing, we fools, consumers, are forced to buy the product
from afar and those who receive the product pay a price that no human ought to bear.
Since we must recognize the complete corruption of such a condition, those that wish to continue
to profit from this are forced to act in ways which protect this profit. If this includes an Orwellian
Ministry of Truth, as the CFPDA intends, then that's the remedy that is needed because profit,
you know, money, power, ad nauseum. That's it. If there were some greater underpinning to the
destruction of whole societies and nations and regions that made some sense in the fabric of improving
the well being of the planet's humans, perhaps we could accede to the years of long sacrifice
and struggle. But no, this is only about wealth and the accumulation of power that this now provides
in our modern world.
The narratives which counter the prevailing religion in the West, the religion of Capitalism
unfettered and rapacious, are not given voice. Many don't even understand that there a different
ways of organizing a society or a nation that serves the need and well being of its citizens.
This bullshit machine being funded by "our own" government is ensuring just that, that people
are not even provided an opportunity to discuss an alternative to the present state of things.
Try not to buy the products that this machine produces, as even if we dream of something else,
this too is contrary to the designs of the machine. Next is the Ministry of Thought, or perhaps
it was first. And the Ministry of Truth is just now only the second to appear manifest.
Brian , January 1, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream
media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year
2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video
Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of
the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.
John McCain has long been recognized as a warmonger eager to attack foreign nations. Many Americans
will be surprised to learn he is now waging war on the American people. Many other Americans won't
have a clue of what this bill means – or even of its existence.
Liam , January 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Regarding all the major propaganda narrative relating to the Syrian War, I put together a massive
compendium of photos, videos and linked evidence related to the White Helmets and other ruses.
Links here:
Extensive links to important JPR posts exposing the White Helmet terrorists .
Please bookmark and save this large amount of info related to the US/UK backed White Helmets
as it is extensive proof that the officials of the aforementioned countries are supporting a fake
group that is directly linked to terrorism. The White Helmets killed the real Syrian Civil Defense
in east Aleppo, Syria in 2013. The videos and research throughout these posts, which is primarily
conducted by UK investigative reporting outfit 21st Century Wire and Venessa Beeley, exposes one
of the greatest war lies over told, a massive propaganda effort meant to deceive and coerce the
populations of western countries into believing that al-Qaeda linked terrorists are civil humanitarians
that save little children.
So we have our own Pravda now. Way to go obama. I voted for him twice and this is how he leaves
us? Not the ending I envisaged.
Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 5:21 pm
I voted for Obama twice as well. I believe in both those cases, he was the lesser of two evils.
McCain knows of no problem that sufficient bombing can't fix, and Romney thought the entire American
public should become vulture capitalists like himself. Who knows what kind of pressure Obama was
under from the deep state. They may well have taken him to the woodshed and told him what he needed
to do if he loved living, and loved his wife and daughters.
Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:34 am
Michael, Skip, don't beat yourself so up to bad, it wasn't as though our choices of candidates
are ever that good. I blame that on a money driven media system, and a public controlled by a
constant narravative void of any critical thinking. This past years election was nothing but immature
on zingers and never about having an intelligent debate. So, don't be to hard on yourself, you
and I never stood a chance with what we had, or rather didn't have to work with. Our candidate
never runs nor do they win. Have a great New Years, I mean that.
F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm
"Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill:
"It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect
our democracy, and innocent lives.""
"Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among
Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best
practices."
" the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship
is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation.""
So Hillary supports the bill, but people still think she's a progressive, let alone a Democrat?
This should solidify the concept that both parties are beholden to a deeper agenda which has decidedly
fascist overtones. When they implement those "best practices", I wonder where book-burning and
smashing printing presses will shake out in that "wide range of techniques". I can already imagine
where they'll go to get that "external expertise". Probably the same place where they're currently
getting "expert training" for our police forces.
These developments contain hallmarks of an empire in decline, clutching at any figment of its
imagination to control the narrative and retain its legitimacy. But on the bright side, I'm curious
to know how far $160 million could really go to prop up failing entities like the NYT, WaPo, CNN
and MSNBC. Wolf Blitzer, Christianne Amanpour, Jill Dogherty, Rachel Maddow, Jake Tapper, Michael
Smerconish, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Ben Wedeman, John King, Gloria Borger and Dana Bash
are just a few of the faces that can make me instantly change the channel. I used to think Phyllis
Bennis, Amy Goodman and Paul Jay were on the level, but they too frequently pull their punches
when the truth REALLY needs to be told. Fox news is just totally hopeless. Most of these people
are shameless liars, and I don't think I'm the only person who notices. They have "phony" written
all over their faces. In the end, free market economics may go a long way to hamper any benefit
a mere $160 million transfusion can pump into the dying corpse of mainstream media. And, if they
try to shut down Black Agenda Report, I wonder whose side the ACLU will pick? Lots of Ph.D theses
and Supreme Court cases are on the horizon from this one! It's still pretty hard to sell a horse
with a wooden leg even with skillful marketing.
In the meantime though, the U.S. Government's "Goebbels Engagement Center" is definitely a
scary thought. Giddayup, Nellybell, here comes the lynch mob!
Regina Schulte , January 1, 2017 at 5:18 pm
The enormity of our government's hypocrisy in all of this defies a sane person's ability to
comprehend the current stance we are now placing before the rest of the world. The long list of
our spying, regime changes, executions, unwarranted secret operations, destruction of national
economies, and the myriad of ongoing other secrecies is a measure of our hubris in thinking that
the rest of the world is our oyster. Despite all of our own sins, we dare to accuse other leaders
of invading our empirical rights!!!
Josh Stern , January 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm
It would be very interesting to learn more about some of the main mechanisms through which
current day US propaganda is scheduled to lead, with nothing bleeding – or even interesting –
at mainstream media outlets. Are those decisions coming from the executive editors or from the
media owners? I'm not going to hold my breath for the media to report on itself in that capacity,
but perhaps some investigative journalists on those staffs will put their anonymously sourced
mouths where their sourced mouths usually go and act as informants to allow independent reporters
to get the scoop on how this works. Who at NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. decided to make no true evidence,
probably a false story, missing the big picture, no-harm Russian hacking a main story almost every
day, giving support fir bloviating idiots in US Congress to declare that Russia must be punished
for the things they have previously declared "every nation does".
Gary Hare , January 1, 2017 at 5:45 pm
It is quite possible that MSM is sometimes accurate in its reporting, and objective in its
analysis. But it has been shown too often to be purveyors of pure propaganda, ignorant of facts
that counter such propaganda and cheerleaders for US/NATO aggression, that it has lost all credibility,
and so we must question virtually everything it says regarding world affairs. The actions of lawmakers
regarding "fake news", and the Obama, Clinton, DMC "we woz robbed" by Putin storyline, is kindergarden
stuff, farcical and petulant, and should be treated as such by objective journalists. Will Trump be any better? I believe there is reason to expect he and his administration to be
even worse, but I wait in hope that I am wrong. The world's only "superpower" has become the world's
leading laughing stock. Are there any grown-ups in US/NATO politics?
F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 6:23 pm
I just gotta say something about that "love fest for Trump" comment. Here's how I see it. Trump
says stuff, and it may not be true. But he really believes it. Hillary tells lies, but she knows
she's lying. She tells them anyway, and insists they're true. I don't have anything but hope.
Deep down, I'm relatively optimistic. Hillary's lies could start WWIII. Trump's blustering probably
wont. If there's even a shred of a chance he'll listen to reason, he has the coglioni to make
some needed changes. Hillary was the puppet. Trump, admittedly, is a bull in a china shop, but
with him, I think we still have a future. And, it could be a very bright one if he plays his cards
right. It's that simple.
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 6:31 pm
The War Against Alternative Information
In a war there are two sides – the aggressors and their targets.
There are two sides to the targets – those who surrender and collaborate and those who resist
to defend their homeland.
Pick a side.
W Hajicek , January 1, 2017 at 6:43 pm
Seriously? Defending Mideast dictatorships because things were orderly?
I am dismayed at the prospect of more propaganda coming from the government. However, a more
pertinent and enlightening critique of this development would be to inform readers of the history
of our government's use of propaganda, and how this new funding, etc., impacts what the government
is already doing. That is wholly missing from this article. Instead there is an inexplicable defense
of authoritarian regimes, in particular going on for paragraph after paragraph about Syria.
And what was your point? Are you actually just debating recent U.S. focus on regime change,
a la Bush? I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't defend Assad or Putin, nor dismiss their use
of propaganda.
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Who claims that everything was alright in the dictatorships like Iraq and Libya? It is just
very likely that there would have been much less violence and suffering if these governments had
not been toppled by force. Claiming that there were allegedly good intentions certainly does not
justify the suffering and violence that was caused by these interventions.
Likewise, of course, those who arm and finance jihadist militias in Syria can claim that their
goal is improving the human rights situation. But is there any credibility of the claim that human
rights will improve when the Syrian government is toppled and Islamist extremist groups like the
Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), Al Zenki and Ashrar Al Sham take power in the parts of Syria that are
not already under the control of Daesh? Or should we believe some fairytales like that, after
taking power in Syria, Wahhabi militias would step aside and hand over power to some liberal pro-democratic
intellectual who had been in exile? The point is that it is certainly not good enough to point
out human rights violations of the Assad government to justify policies that would, if they were
successful, probably bring to power forces that have even less respect for human rights.
Furthermore, if the fact that the government of a country can be called a dictatorship should
be a sufficient reason for overthrowing it (whichever forces come to power afterwards), what should
be the criteria? After all, dictatorships are not really rare in many parts of the world, especially
the Middle East. Why has the US turned on one secular dictatorship after the other, but never
attacked theocratic Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have an abysmal
human rights record? Obviously, the criteria are not based on whether a government is an autocracy
or how much it violates human rights, but something else (probably some geostrategic interests).
I think the main points of criticism of the idea that the fact that a government is autocratic
gives an outside country like the US the right to topple it are:
1. "Humanitarian" justifications of interventions are worthless when they are likely to lead
to more violence and suffering than if the intervention had not been made.
2. Toppling a dictator in a country without a long democratic tradition is not likely to lead
to a functioning democracy afterwards. In Western countries, democracy has also taken a long time
to develop, it can hardly be brought about by some bombs. In many cases, toppling a dictator either
leads to long-term armed fights between competing groups and/or a new dictatorship sooner or
later.
3. When we look at autocracies that were toppled and others that were not toppled by the US,
it is hardly plausible that the criterion was how autocratic the government was, how much it violated
human rights or how low the standard of living was. Since the "humanitarian" arguments are not
the real criteria for the decision about which autocracy should be attacked (otherwise, it would
be hard to explain why, for instance, Saudi Arabia has not been attacked), it would make more
sense to discuss the real reasons for the attacks, whatever they are, than the justifications
that are brought forward when the decision to topple a country has been taken.
4. If the idea of the illegality of wars of aggression in international law (except extraordinary
circumstances authorized by the UN Security Council) is given up, this could lead to dangerous
wars in many regions. Which countries should have the right to attack countries that are determined
to be autocracies by the attacker? Would the US tolerate it if India or Russia decided to topple
pro-Western autocracies that violate himan rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?
Sam F , January 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Yes, the same US propaganda reasoning applied to the US oligarchy, which is a set of autocrats,
would require that the US use subversion and military force to remove the Republicans, Democrats,
warmongers, AIPAC, imperialist financiers etc..
Starting with drone attacks on mass media, party
operatives, bank HQ etc. Then some "shock and awe" and an invasion to subdue its military forces,
greeted by the people of the US dancing in the streets. Then denial of employment to all who worked
for the US regime, followed by founding a true democracy where money does not buy mass media or
elections.
Something tells me that the dark state will not reach that conclusion. So I guess that democracy
was never the objective of regime change by the US.
Judging by your name, you have Czech origin. Why are you supporting democracy all over the
world from the U.S.? Shouldn' t you be saving the Czech Reublic from bad Zeman? There's no communism
there anymore
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 10:56 pm
One of the problems with regime change whether practices by an outside agency such as the United
States and Iraq, Libya, etc. or through an internal revolution is the risk of the cure being worse
than the disease.
Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 8:23 pm
It is funny and indeed troubling that the US is busy copycatting the practices of the recent
foe that went down exactly because these practices were grossly inefficient. I of course mean
the Cold War 1.0 and the former Soviet Union. I remember listening to Voice of America in my youth
in search for truth. I never imagined that only a few years later during my lifetime Americans
will be looking for truth in Russian news outlets and the US will create "the Global Engagement
Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." In fact,
resorting to such practices is a huge sign of weakness and decline. It is a pity really that the
US are getting that weak that fast. I am not really pro-American but I still remember things that
America used to champion around the world (yes, the Freedom of Speech too!), and we all still
need these things as much as ever. Too bad they are under threat in the US themselves now. Hopefully
Trump will indeed be able to make America great again and stop all this nonsense.
What is most sad is that many American rally for this "the Global Engagement Center". See Bill
Cash here. I see it the same way you do, sinc eI was also born in the USSR.
Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:33 pm
Oleg read this link I'm providing, and see if you feel as does the Russian who wrote this magnificent
article .
these are just semi clever diversions leading the average away from the Prime Agenda ..Lol ..ask
Merkel she knows
Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm
What I find scary is how much the dominance of the propaganda discourse has increased. Before
the Iraq war, there was widespread dissent, and in most of Europe, support for the war was a minority
position. But in the case of Libya and, even more Syria, dissent is tolerated less and almost
all media strictly follow the official propaganda line. I find this even more striking because,
after all, this is a position that should be rather hard to sell to the public. One should think
that it should not be so easy to spread the idea that mostly jihadist militias that were (and
mostly still are) allied with Al Qaeda are the good guys that should be supported with money and
arms. That even such a difficult position could reach such a dominant position in the Western
media discourse shows how effective the propaganda is. I am beginning to think that if the line
that Sweden is the biggest threat to world peace was spread, people would sign petitions on change.org
for finally occupying Sweden, and there would be talking points about the inaction of the US president
because Sweden still has not been occupied by US troops although everyone recognizes that it is
an enormous threat to humanity. I am probably exaggerating a bit, but if the relevant interest
groups are successful in making many people believe that anyone who does not support jihadist
allies of Al Qaeda who behead "traitors" and bombing anti-air defences all over the country is
heartless towards Syrians, there are probably many other things that seem absurd and extreme now
that could be promoted in a way that soon anyone who does not agree with it is depicted as a bad
person.
I find the role of Snopes particularly worrying. Of course, I cannot judge whether everything
Eva Bartlett says is true. But her reports are detailed and connected to evidence, while the Snopes
texts that dismiss her are written in a sloppy and superficial way. This would not be a problem
if Snopes was just one more website where a point of view is expressed (accidentally or not so
accidentally one that is very close to the position of the US government). But since it is planned
that Snopes should be one of the arbiters with a higher authority that should decide what is true
and what is not, this is worrysome. It is not too hard to predict that Snopes would hardly ever
flag articles from the Washington Post or the New York Times that are close to the US government
as "disputed" even if they are speculative and based on flimsy evidence, but other texts contradicting
them will probably regularly be flagged as "disputed". The only question is whether this will
be effective or if people will just ignore the "disputed" flags if they are biased in a way that
is too obvious (which also means that the flags would be ineffective against real fake news) and,
if Facebook starts hiding such "disputed" stories, just move over to other networks.
Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Regarding Sweden and propaganda: Wag the Dog. 1997 movie. All said then. Sadly, still more
true than ever.
Stefan , January 1, 2017 at 8:54 pm
Democracy Later is more dangerous than the other big propaganda organs.
While the latter ones require very little scrutiny by the observant to recognize as the warmongers
that they are
the former (democracy now[sic] ) tries to lure the the careful reader and critic into its
well crafted trap of deception – to gather your trust where it matters the least, and couches
it's warmongering where it matters the most, most recently in regards to Syria.
Kent , January 2, 2017 at 11:33 am
Stefan,
'Democracy Later' I like that.
Look at DN's funding structure it's not hard to figure out.
Kent – The link to a supposed 'flow chart' looks suspicious, since there's no links/attributions
to sources, and the 'newsofinteterest' website (apparently inactive for ~5 yrs?) didn't appear
to be particularly credible in my experience (ie; links to 911 truthers, Laetrile cancer proponents,
etc). And to regard Noam Chomsky's political views as somehow significantly influenced by corporate
money/government coercion (as the diagram does at the bottom) is laughable - the guy has been
a strong, vocal, prolific critic of US imperialism, condemning it since the c1960.
Decades ago
he stopped paying a portion of his taxes as a protest against military spending, and subsequently
has had his wages garnished by the government. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Chomsky's
prescriptions of what to do (e.g.; his judgement that it was best to vote for HC), his descriptions
of what HAS happened have been accurate, nuanced, and documented.
David F., N.A. , January 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm
This says it all:
But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough.
Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.
The illusions of "freedom" hates us for our First Amendment. Isn't this the true premise behind
our bought-and-paid-for government's multinational oligarchs' enactment of all
these new Patriot Acts (NDAAs and other laws)?
For over a year and a half prior to the election several liberal websites started mimicking
the msm with their Trump bashing. To me, all these bashings were backhanded endorsements for Clinton.
I swear, most, if not all, of the liberal topics, talking points and phrases were exactly identical
to the msm's. As apparent as it was this election, this showed that the bluedogs in-charge had
been influencing the liberals for quite some time. This is probably why the duopoly issue wasn't
strongly addressed back when Nader spoiled Gore's chances in 2000 (hold on, hold on, I have a
legitimate excuse: a foundation paid me to say that).
Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:12 pm
Obama did promise hope and change, but it is highly unlikely anyone outside the neocon and
proto-fascist cabals hoped for this change setting up a Ministry of Truth. What a legacy!!!
What a great essay. Thank you to the writer. So many links to explore. I agree wholeheartedly
in the analysis. I wrote a very simple essay for my own website which comes to the same conclusions.
I include a list of headlines from main stream media regarding the "Russian hacking" and then
the headlines from independent media. It was quite stark. Someone is lying.
I agree Elizabeth we do need Independent Media. I wish our news was more International Independent,
and I think that maybe coming. I see people posting comments on this site from International Countries,
so it's already happening. I read some foreign sites myself, but I hope that if allowed to continue
that this average person may be able to interact with other peoples of the world, and make some
sense of all of this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but a person can dream can't they?
This 2017 New Years Americans are permitted to blame Vladimir Putin for they're getting obnoxiously
drunk while bringing in the New Year with a couple a bottles of Stolichnaya .this maybe void in
Vermont, considering.
This Russian hacking scare is scaring some Americans for real, and that ain't good, because
with the hysteria comes the loss of more freedoms. Each episode of terror or security related
troubled matters comes America's way, means the end of a Right. Our grandchildren of this new
century will assume there always was a Homeland Security, because it's always been there as long
as they can remember. The most pathetic part of all of this is that it all began to be set in
motion over Hillary's loss. I'll end it here, but your essay was spot on and intelligent on top
of that.
Brian , January 2, 2017 at 9:37 am
"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild
June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?
A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many
of the brands below do you use?
I just ran into a little essay which suggests to me that The War Against Alternative Information
is actually one of many campaigns in a much larger conflict. Regarding the link, the author
is somebody I've never heard of, and I hope and pray he doesn't turn out to be a neo-nazi or some
similar kind of nut.
Trump sensing Obama's resort to violent retaliation against Russia, and the likelihood he
would turn the gun to 'Putin's accomplice', the President-elect decided to take precautionary
measures, he replaced Obama's secret service by his private security guards.
... ... ... There is little doubt that the murder of the Russian Ambassador will be the beginning of a
cycle of violent assassinations. It is certain that Putin and Trump will take the appropriate
defensive measures.
I don't follow Roman Catholic affairs, but last I heard the current Pope hadn't moved into
the Vatican. It's my opinion that's the only reason the man is still alive. Still an opinion,
but his hyper-caution is something other people ought to imitate.
Jan 1, 2017 2017: TRUTH RISING - Melissa & Aaron Dykes
Aaron and Melissa Dykes are truth researchers, truth journalists and truth filmmakers. Their
excellent website Truthstreammedia com and You Tube channel by the same name are two must visit
destination for anyone who wants to be informed about the REAL issues we face. Truthstreammedia
is the antithesis to the "fake news" you'll get from CNN and mainstream media outlets.
I believe the war criminals past and present are terrified that the sleeping masses might finally
wake up. Therefore, they are attempting to shut down alternative voices, and continuing their
propaganda via their corporate hand maidens.
"There is overwhelming evidence that wars on a number of countries were planned. Yet, this evidence
is censored and covered up by many of the so-called "searchers for truth," in the "investigative
media." The TV "news" parrots propaganda daily and the "newspapers" do likewise "
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-propaganda-peddlers-war-criminals.html
"... George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists. ..."
"... Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist. ..."
"... Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it. ..."
"... They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao. ..."
"... I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ..."
"... The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties. ..."
"... I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party ..."
"... Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics. ..."
"... It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable. ..."
"... Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. ..."
"... I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually: ..."
"... " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering ..."
"... It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy. ..."
"... Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior". ..."
"... And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. ..."
"... yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014 ..."
"... Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit. ..."
"... The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans. ..."
"... Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what. ..."
"... His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people. ..."
"... His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not! ..."
"... Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party. ..."
"... And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence? ..."
"... Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious. ..."
"... "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are. ..."
"... The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. ..."
"... I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell. ..."
"... Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same. ..."
"... Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around. ..."
"... Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. ..."
"... The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies. ..."
"... The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man. ..."
"... If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens. ..."
"... The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them. ..."
"... Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business. ..."
"... Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor. ..."
It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office
records. You couldn't set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling,
"Oops, I Did It Again." And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures
in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.
In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That's up from 16 in 2000.
What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base
and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.
... ... ...
Obama's wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama
to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. the neoliberals had hollowed it
out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority
coalitions.
Republicans
control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They
boast 25 trifectas
, controlling both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion. Trifectas had gone from being
something that wasn't seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the
South, the Midwest and the West.
The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and
little else. The vast majority of the
country's legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor's Association has a membership
in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from
holding national legislative
majorities to becoming a marginal movement.
... Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the
old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control
them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying
the very thing he was trying to control.
George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care
about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly
over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe
that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable,
the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his
fellow elitists.
Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its
vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The
idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists
and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros
believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist
nationalist.
... ... ...
Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered,
and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the
United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with
it.
"I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave
in 2010.
But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.
"There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly
heard from candidates Trump and Cruz,"
Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.
I wouldn't give Soros that much credit.
Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years
to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties.
I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal
group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck
'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged
Democrat Party
" they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal,
globalist warmers, etc "
Inclusive politics are not at the root of the crisis which the center-left is now experiencing
on both sides of the Atlantic. Neoliberalism is.
Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left
over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity
for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took
a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed
to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became
increasingly subdued by identity politics.
Today, we witness this phenomenon across all major center-left parties & their associated media
pundits. A prominent example would be the vocal support that mainstream neoliberal outlets, such
as the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist, are consistently offering to the Social
Democratic parties & candidates. These neoliberal platforms take on a public profile of social
radicalism on key social issues, while they relentlessly advocate for unfettered free trade and
a form of laissez faire capitalism at the same time.
It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy.
Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically
low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism &
ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of
affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events
as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable.
Erik, when haven't England and the US been governed by neoliberals? Neoliberals control by divide
and conquer tactics. In the US, elections have always been rural vs city, young vs old, white
vs non-white. Even when Obama won, he didn't win the white vote, the rural vote or the old vote.
Brexit, too, was about young vs old, rural vs city and white vs non-white.
In the big national elections, it comes down to which sides get out the vote. In the case of
the Presidential election, the Democrats, who couldn't have picked a more entitled, crooked and
repulsive candidate, just couldn't get out enough of their own vote out her. In the case of the
Brexit election, it was the fear of the non-urban whites being over run by immigrants, that made
the difference.
I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society,
and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel
it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings
to mind the following quote, actually:
" Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. "
- Hermann Goering
Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American
legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done
with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior".
Perhaps the legacies of class warfare & racial hierarchy should end.
EML, would it kill you to be a bit more balanced in your comments? You always end up with a rant
about the "far-right" and "identity politics". Do you deny that the far left constantly disparages
Jews and working class whites, who these leftists refer to as "white trash" and "trailer trash"?
And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski,
Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. Try not being such
a polarizing one-trick pony, or at least save yourself time by using the term, 'ditto' for your
posts, since most of your posts appear to be redundant pleas for negative attention.
Hermann Goering, please. Now you are resorting to Godwin's Law. How pathetic.
yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" -
G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014
Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit.
The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars
at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and
large. The same ist true for the republicans.
Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either.
He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own
personal enrichment no matter what.
His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some
empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people.
He sold out his fellow jews to the Nazis
back in the dark times of the 1930s/1940s; he virtually delivered them to the Nazio slaughterhouse
and never ever regretted it. He is doing and always will do the same to everybody else.
His only
"principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining
life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not!
Putin showed the world that you could aspire towards Christian nationhood, and take yourselves
out from under the debt enslaved thumb of Zoinist Rothchild Bankers. For that he must be stopped.
Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that
let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious.
"They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon.
They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are."
Actually, I find this post to be a very accurate summation of what the 2016 election turned
out to be. It is true that it was not Soros alone who created the evil that was done, but he was
the money bags behind it.
The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that
was needed to complete the complete destruction. What is disturbing is how incapable those whose
guilt is writ in this fiasco are of coming to terms with their very own failures. All you see
them do is try to blame others for their iniquities.
I can think of no finer display of corrupt
pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running
this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell.
Since it came from Soros, Its "good" influence. Its only bad when such things hurt democrats.
Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference
in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same.
They import millions of
foreigners who overwhelmingly vote democrat. They wouldn't stand a chance in a national election
without a shitload of non americans voting. How exactly that isn't defined as 'foreign interference
in our elections' is beyond me.
Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party.
They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery
her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you
for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to
remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around.
Also have to thank Soros for Black Lives Matter. When the revolution comes, there will be
a bunch of cops on our side, and most of the angry nutbags who kill random cops will be black,
which means there will be even more cops on our side.
Within a few years maybe we will thank Soros for a fascist Europe and the giant enema which
will follow. And the Farce will come full circle for this devil who got his start betraying
his own people to the Nazis so he could steal their shit.
"Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's
activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and
December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible.
. . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish
political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative
of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and
a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep
order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand
young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.
It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for
me ....We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though
he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking
them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve
he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it
possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and
the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would
have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. .
. . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner
rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his
group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . .
That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews. (p.261) - See more at:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...
Everyone, especially politicians. Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the
world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. As long as they are getting
rich they are "winning".
The Koch brothers stayed out of the fray as they do not like Trump. The neoliberals tried to make
the Kochs a demon but no one was buying the bullshit. The neoliberals needs demons as they don't
have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled
with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies.
Not this year really. They were not behind Trump, supported HRC if I am not mistaken, after Trump
won the nomination.
Thing about the Krotch brothers that is different from Soros is they try to influence thing
to benefit themselves financially, not necessarily to destroy the country, where Soros is flat
out anti traditional American values and US constitution. The constitution is the only thing that
has kept us from being a full blown totalitarian state run by global government so far, so it
has to be destroyed in his mind.
I could be wrong, but don't think the Krotch brothers are out to destroy the constitution,
just obscenely enrich themselves bordering on illegally.
Russians put the weeds in your lawn ... at night. Soros has always been a major problem for the
entire world, and that is why the news will be very interesting this year, because everyone knows.
Happy new year.
Goodbye, Democratic Party. See you maybe in 16 years, but I doubt it. My guess is
a different party will be formed to challenge the Republicans in 2032, and the Democrats will
go the way of the Bull Moose Party, as in extinction.
The status of the national part of the Republican party seems a little up in the air to me.
If
Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon
warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens.
Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats
became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they
moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war
was bad for business.
Then the self perpetuating MIC that Eisenhower warned of became ascendant
and then war was even more of a racket than it always was. Their influence came to the fore with
Bush Sr.
Reagan had some in his administration, but he fired many or moved them out of positions of
power when it came to his attention they were following their own agenda. And yet, he had enough
to convince him of the Iran contra stuff.
Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's
where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor.
Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ms. Merkel has been the most
consequential voice for punishing Russia. The next year, she welcomed a million refugees into
Germany, and pushed the rest of Europe to do the same - thus, in the view of Russian
ethno-nationalists, diluting European culture. And she still believes in a united, integrated
European Union, a bastion of liberal values and, at least implicitly, a political and economic
bulwark against Russia.
... ... ...
Here, we can draw valuable lessons from the Cold War. What Russia does today is very much the
digital version of what we Germans, before 1989, termed "Zersetzung." The term is hard to
translate, but it's best described as the political equivalent of what happens when you pour acid
on organic material: dissolution and disintegration.
The methods of Zersetzung are to cast doubt on the basic norms of the Western liberal order and
its institutions; to distort and thereby discredit the purposes of the European Union, NATO and
the free-market economy; to erode the credibility of the free press and free elections. The means
of Zersetzung include character assassination and, through the spreading of lies and fake news,
the creation of a gray zone of doubt in which facts struggle to survive.
... ... ...
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper
Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.
The government press release written by DHS-FBI did not mention Wikileaks in its report. Nor
did the report provide any evidence of Russian hacking in the US elections. Instead, the press
release stated that "technical indicators" of Russian hacking were in the "CSV file and XML file
attached with the PDF." However, there was no CSV or XML file or link attached with the PDF. I
was eventually able to find these two files at this link.
https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity
To see the evidence of Russian hacking first hand, I downloaded the CSV file and converted
it into a spreadsheet. The CSV file and the XML file both contained the same data. Here is the
XML link to this data which can be viewed online in a web browser.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR-16-20296.xml
Both files provide a list of 895 "indicators" of Russian Hacking. Unfortunately, nearly all
of these indicators are simply IP addresses. In other words, it is a list of 895 servers from
from more than 40 countries around the world. But the list also includes a few website domain
names. (Domain names are simply the name of the website such as Youtube.com). I looked up these
website domain names with the the following tool which tells us who owns the domain names and
where they are located: https://www.whois.net/
My review of these domain names confirmed that none of these domain names have any relationship
to Russian government hackers. Here are the results for four of the domain names provided by the
DHS and the FBI as evidence of Russian hacking:
ritsoperrol.ru is not in use. It is registered to a private person. The named server hosting
the domain is nserver: ns0.xtremeweb.de. This is a German web hosting and consulting company
whose address and phone number are publicly listed on their website. It is highly unlikely
that Russian hackers would use a public German web host to register and host their domain names.
littlejohnwilhap.ru is not in use and is available to be purchased. It is unlikely that
Russian hackers would use a domain name like this to launch a cyber attack on the US.
wilcarobbe.com is taken and is not in use. It is registered to Arsen Ramanov in Groznenskaya
Russia. His address, phone number and email address are all publicly listed. It is highly unlikely
that Russian hackers would use a domain name that was publicly listed. Hackers are not idiots.
one2shoppee.com is taken and is registered with GoDaddy.com. It is not currently in use.
But it is highly unlikely that Russian Hackers would register their domain names with GoDaddy
– which is a US server. In fact, it is very unlikely that Russian hackers would ever use any
US servers. They would only use their own servers.
How did these four domain names get on a list of Russian hackers? It is possible that some
unknown agents took over these domain names and may have used them for some kind of hacking activity.
However, the agents could have just as easily been from the US as from Russia. In fact, it is
not likely that these domain names were taken over by Russian hackers for the simple reason that
Russian hackers are way to smart to be using these silly tactics.
None of the 885 IP addresses have any confirmed relationship to Russian Government Hackers
An IP address is simply a numerical designation for a server. The 885 IP addresses listed in
the DHS – FBI CSV file were even more interesting. The IP addresses were located on servers from
the US and more than 40 nations around the world including more than 30 IP addresses supposedly
located in China. Here are a few of the IP addresses
Here are a four examples of IP addresses in the DHS-FBI report:
167.114.35.70 is a Canadian Corporate server specializing in the promotion of Bitcoin. They
are within a few miles of the US border.
185.12.46.178 is a Swiss corporate server associated with the domain name leavesorus.com.
The domain name leavesorus.com is currently available to be purchased. This indicates that
this is a fake domain name and likely a fake corporation.
46.102.152.132 is another Swiss corporate server this one specializing in emails and associated
with the domain name maxsultan.xyz which is a fake domain name. This also indicates that this
is another fake corporation.
178.20.55.16 is a proxy server with no known location but has been used as a TOR router
exit node. A proxy server is another name for a mirror or server used to bounce information
from one server to another in order to hide the true location of the original server. This
proxy server is associated with the domain name nos-oignons.net. This domain name was registered
on December 31 2012 and is valid until December 31 2017. In other words, whoever got this domain
name paid for its use for 5 years. But they did registered the domain name anonymously. The
website associated with this server appears to be a group in France promoting the TOR router.
They became an association in May 2013 – 5 months after getting the domain name. The group
currently has 5 members and it costs one Euro to join this group. Their website was reported
9 days ago as having been infected with the Zues virus. This infection does not leave tracks
on server logs. So it is difficult to tell where it came from. Removal of this virus requires
a complete rebuild of the server. In short, some agency decided to take out this server and
then use it to make a cyber attack on some US government agency and thus have the IP address
listed on the DHS-FBI list as one of 895 indicators of Russian hacking.
Many of the IP addresses yielded the same dead end or otherwise highly suspicious result -
meaning that some very large agency is using hundreds of servers in various countries around the
world as a front for hacking attacks. I recently researched a series of attacks on my personal
websites from hundreds of IP addresses using hundreds of servers that were supposedly located
in the Ukraine. I was able to confirm the exact location in the Ukraine that was supposedly being
used to launch literally thousands of attacks on my websites. However, it is not credible that
anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in
a remote Ukrainian location. Nor is it likely that anyone in rural Ukraine would even have the
knowledge to take care of hundreds of servers even if they did have the millions of dollars needed
to plow into buying these servers. Nor are they likely to have the knowledge needed to be running
very complex cyber attacks. Ukraine is just not a good location for servers. This experience convinced
me that attacks were being launched from other locations and were merely being routed through
Ukraine in order to mislead people about where the attacks were really coming from.
Next, the CSV file provided by DHS-FBI listed the physical location of all 885 IP addresses.
What is most ironic is that, only two of the 885 IP addresses were from servers in Russia. The
most common location of the hacking servers was the United States. Over 30 of the servers were
supposedly located in China. But it is known that the NSA has the ability to use satellite mirrors
to hide the locations of their servers – making folks believe that the attacks are coming from
China (or Ukraine or Mongolia) when in fact they are coming from servers located in the US.
... ... ...
Actually, there were two Russian servers located on lines 259 and 261. Here are the IP addresses.
93.171.203.244
95.105.72.78
Here is more information about each of these:
93.171.203.244 This is a clean broadband server located near Ufa which is a city in Russia
with one million people. It is associated with an organization called Miragroup Ltd. The website
is rxbrothers.ru. Naturally, this is a fake domain name which is available to be purchased.
Miragroup is actually a corporation located in Great Britain.
95.105.72.78 is another clean broadband server located near Ufa. The organization is JSC
Ufanet and the website is ufanet.ru which is a public broadband service started in 1997. Someone
apparently is using this broadband service to hack the US government. Could this be the smoking
gun that the Russian government is attacking the US? Think about it. If you were a Russian
hacker, would you really use a public server located in some Russian town? I don't think so.
This is more like evidence that some hacker was using the local public library.
Imagine someone launching a cyber attack from the Seattle Public library – and then our government
declaring that they have evident that the mayor of the City of Seattle was responsible for the
attack because "nothing happens in Seattle without the approval of the Mayor!". This is worse
than a silly accusation. It is ridiculous. It is irresponsible.
Real Russian Hackers do not use Windows Servers
Only three of the servers provided in the DHS/FBI report included detailed information (despite
the fact that the IP addresses provided information on all 895 servers and that DHS/FBI certainly
have detailed information on all of the servers). All three servers listed in the report were
Windows servers. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers or Chinese hackers would be using
Windows servers. Instead, all real hackers use Linux servers because Linux servers are much more
secure than Windows servers.
https://techlog360.com/top-15-favourite-operating-systems-of-hackers/
If there really was evidence of Russian hacking, the NSA would have it
Former NSA leader turned whistleblower William Binney recently stated that if the Russians
really did hack the Democratic Party servers, the NSA would certainly have real evidence (not
the nonsense put out in the DHS-FBI CSV file). Here is his quote from a December 29 2016 article
by Glenn Greenwald: "The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any "hacked" emails
from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes
require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender
and recipient can be traced across the network."
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/
Anyone with any kind of technical background in defending against hacker attacks would understand
that what Binney, Snowden and Greenwald are saying is true. The evidence of their truth – most
of which was supplied by Snowden from NSA documents – is overwhelming.
Conclusion
An important research principle is to follow the money. People around the world need to ask
themselves who has the money and technical ability to be running hundreds and perhaps thousands
of real servers and real IP addresses from fake corporations using fake websites in fake locations
in more than 40 nations around the world?
What agency has already been proven to be running mass surveillance on billions of people in
more than 40 nations all around the world? Whose military cyber budget is more than 10 times larger
than the cyber warfare budget of the rest of the world combined? There is certainly an elephant
in the room – but it is not a Russian elephant.
At a televised press conference on April 2016, former NSA agent, Edward Snowden asked the Russian
leader Vladimir Putin if the Russian government engaged in mass surveillance of millions of people
in a manner similar to the NSA. Putin replied that Russian law prohibited the Russian government
from engaging in mass surveillance. Putin then pointed out that the Russian military budget was
less than 10% of the US military budget. So even if they wanted to engage in mass surveillance,
they simply did not have the money.
People also need to ask themselves why the FBI DHS chose to place their evidence in a CSV file
and XML file rather than a normal document or spreadsheet. If this were real evidence, it would
have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the
general public has little ability to read.
Finally, for the FBI or the DHS to claim that the XML-CSV file contains evidence or even indicators
of Russian hacking is simply a false statement. It is a perfect example of fake news. Any news
agency promoting this claim without doing even the most basic of research that would easily confirm
it is false, should be listed as a fake news agency.
The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation
by posting such a fake report?
Several years ago, our CIA claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that
Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction – meaning that we went to war and spent over a trillion
dollars on a fake report. Is this new fake report a pretext for launching a cyber war against
Russia? Is it intended to justify increasing US military spending?
It is hard to say what the real purpose of this fake DHS-FBI report is. But the fact that this
silly list of IP addresses was the best evidence they could provide should be a strong indication
that there really is no evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, it is more likely that Wikileaks
is telling the truth in stating that they got the emails from a disgruntled Democratic Party insider.
J S Bach
bamawatson ,
Jan 1, 2017 8:47 PM
The DHS and FBI have no reputation to destroy. They are part of the cancerous system
and thus infamously corrupt. Look at the way they handled the Hillary emails. Total
proof of treason and they chose to ignore it. Do we expect any more honesty or competency
from such a den of snakes?
John Podesta fell for a phishing attack. So they got all of his emails. Which were
embarrassing. And Huma stupidly used Carlos Danger's perving PC for government
business. Shit like that. Oh, and SecState email was kept on an unsecure
server in some guy's bathroom and places like that. And could not be FOIAed. Or
secured. And got copied around to non-cleared persons pretty heavily and carelessly.
And who fucking cares whether the hacker who hit the jackpot happened to be Russian or to know
Russians or to have even seen Dr Zhivago or admired Baryshnykov's dancing crotch meat back
in the day?
Everyone with an email account has received phishing emails. This is not sophisticated
cloak and dagger or supercomputers or signal intercepts.
Its a typical old mean white guy Dem grandee who let ALL his email fly into the wind.
His real thoughts and feelings and plans and reactions thereto by other old mean lefties.
Which were embarrassiing.
The NSA may have hacked the DNC with a bot released and intended for someone else. ......
That can happen very easily. ..... Just ask Barry and The Israelites
Live Hard, STUXNET Is Still In The Wild Doing Mischief To This Day, Die Free
Great write-up. While I never had any doubt the DNC-hacks were 100% an inside job, simple deductive
reasoning leads to very few other conclusions, it's nice to see a thorough parsing of the gubmint's
smoke and mirrors job.
"If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone
to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read."
Anyone with Excel (which is basically anyone with a Windows PC) can open a CSV file.
Of course the "hacking" claims are BS, but there's no need for hyperbole when the facts are
so obvious.
" The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their
reputation by posting such a fake report?"
Why? Because the most important thing to Obama is to spread his lies and other propaganda
by whatever means necessary. No one should take any DHS or FBI report seriously after
8 years of Obama (and James Comey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and dozens of other agency chiefs).
My respect for this work - totally impressive, even though It's mostly beyond me. If the NSA
has every keystroke that anyone makes, then they'd have everything, of course.
The Dems and all the McCain's men are just rattled that their war against Russia could be
slipping away. Their next tool will be to turn Trump or impeach him.
Don't enlist or you could find yourself in a war against Russia, dead, or a damaged veteran.
Don't let them use you.
As I wrote on Dec. 12, 2016: "Riddle me this, CIA..
1. Is it possible to hack into a computer, and not leave a trail or unique fingerprint that
leads back to You? Especially if the hack is physically initiated from outside the location
(country, company or building) from where the attack is shown to originate? E.g. initiate hack
from Macao or US. Is it possible? YES or NO?
2. Do you think that the Russian government, any other major Power or "Mr. Robot" hacker
have the ability to do #1? YES or NO?
If the answers are Yes to both these critical questions, then you got Nothing, Zip, Zilch,
Zero, Nada, Babkuss on "the Russians". At best, all you have is Conjecture or a Staged Trail.
p.s. As I wrote some days later, if it were me, I'd take a fresh "Burner Laptop" and initiate
a hack attack from some Asian country, or even from within the US. The CIA, DNC and Obama are
so full of shit, that it reeks to the moon.
"However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed
to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location."
I still fail to see the logic where by the release of actual emails indicating unethical,
criminal actions of a group (DNC) results in accusations that "Russians hacked the election".
"Russian hackers" is the new "because 9/11" mantra.
A cyber-TSA will be soon groping you as you surf the web.
You will need a gov approved identification device to connect.
Randomly your connection will be paused while a cyber-LEO avatar pops up and asks for your
id and some questions about what you are doing.
Finally a proper analyzes of the report. Thanks a lot. I am still wondering
why nobody has done the same. Having read this article it's obvious they got nothing.
I bet that Obama and the deep state are gambling on that the fakestream media will do their
job and misinform the sheeple and that decades of old mistrust and fake propaganda against
the Russians will do the rest.
It does not matter if the evidence are fake, when most people already has bought it, and
the fakestream media keeps backing it up. Hell. Even republicans have swallowed the bate.
So why did they do it?. Perhaps Obama, the deep state and the FBI and all those other agencies
already knows that their days are numbered. They might as well producing just another fake
report before it's over.
If Trump wants to stop and reverse this, it's not enough to clean out the FBI and all those
other agencies, he has to do something with the fakestream media too, because what they are
doing is strait out criminal.
What you do son, is block the Chinese IP blocks at your firewall. Blook 'em all. Some hackers
will complain and give you their addresses when they do. Then you show up at their house with
6 football players and they never, ever do that again.
The NSA has the to and from metadata for sure and copies of the data content going in both
directions as a bonus. This is a false flag dog and pony show to use as an excuse to expel
Russian diplomats and maybe start WW III if 'somebody somewhere' deems it necessary.
Consider it magic 'yellow cake' or a Polish radio station. ... It won't go away because
you have iron clad evidence that it was never there to begin with.
This is the New World Odor where things are what you are told they are and if it kills a
few million people then just get over it and be Dog Blamed glad it didn't eat your homework
and kill you too.
Live Hard, It Is Hard To Argue With Rock Solid Reasoning Like That, Die Free
If the Russian hackers are so damn good at what they do, it seems ludicrous that they would
leave great big arrows pointing towards themselves. Why, it's almost like a guy that
drives a truck into a crowd leaving his identity card in the cab of the truck. Or it's
like a bunch of guys that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings using their real names
and their indestructible passpoorts to board the planes. ZH had an article yesterday
quoting that hard-hitting political publication Rolling Stone magazine saying that this entire
Russian hacking report has all the earmarks of a repeat of Bush the Lesser's WMD in Iraq report.
I gotta agree with Rolling Stone. If a hacker is really good, and we keep getting force-fed
how good the Russians are, they AIN'T going to leave their calling card in the server(s) they've
hacked.
Similar to spy satellites there is a level of clarity and transparency that many advanced
nations have.
That is why Hillary is such a ridiculous cunt for using a private server to perform her
clinton foundation and day to day operations upon and why the US government "explicitly prohibits
it."
The leaks originated and were targeted at that ridiculous cunt Hillary and she made us all
less safe by being corrupt, stupid, and unethical in her office of trust.
NSA also has all.. ALLLL the emails that that criminal cunt Hillary sent.
I really do think we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all of this.
a C&C command and control server could be anywhere, often these servers are used by cyber
squating
Somewhere in this monster bureaucracy imitating a government "for the people" is somebody[s]
collecting a fat paycheck and bennies to make damn sure our election didn't get hacked by Russians.
Could somebody please fire the fucker if we were actually hacked.
I am suffering from bullshit burnout. I just want the election to be over for awhile, my
god what an inept bunch of hacks running the country, [into the ground].
The entire Russian "hacking" saga was nonsense from day 1 and indicative of severe structural
problems confronting US capitalism and raging battles going on between competing factions within
the financial elite controlling US foreign policy. These divisions have become more pronounced
following: 1) Trump's upset victory in November and 2) the military debacle for the US/NATO
in Syria. Trumps victory notwithstanding, expect these divisions to become increasingly ferocious
as the economic vice continues tightening. Very dangerous times ahead.
Any hacker good enough to work for a big government agency would be good enough to not get
caught. All big governments spy and hack eachother. They may know they've been hacked and even
speculate who may have done it, but there is no so called definitive "evidence" at that level.Evidence
of a hack probably, evidence of who.... no fucking way. Here the government goes again trying
to create a boogeyman to promote some rich people's agenda. Pretty sure the NSA spys and hacks
eeeevverryyybody.... hypocrites.
Asked what that information included, the Republican President-elect said, " You will find out on
Tuesday or Wednesday ." He did not elaborate.
Trump also reiterated his belief that others might be responsible for the cyberattacks: "I know
a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And
I also know things that other people don't know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation."
"I think it's unfair if we don't know. It could be somebody else," Reuters cited Trump as telling
the media.
He also added that computers are a risky form of communication. "It's very important, if you have
something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way
because I'll tell you what, no computer is safe," Mr. Trump added. "I don't care what they say, no
computer is safe. I have a boy who's 10 years old, he can do anything with a computer. You want something
to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier."
Readers of the Washington Post received some alarming news yesterday when the paper published
a story alleging that those pesky "Russian hackers" were up to their no good tricks again and
had managed to "penetrate the U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont." The full headline
read as follows:
The opening paragraph of WaPo's story directly linked the "hack" of the Vermont utility to
the same "Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe" that the Obama administration has blamed
for the DNC and John Podesta email hacks . Vermont's Governor, Peter Shumlin, told WaPo that "
Americans should be both alarmed and outraged" by these actions perpetrated by " one of the world's
leading thugs, Vladimir Putin," before seemingly calling for further retaliatory actions from
the Obama administration.
Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world's
leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely
upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety. This episode should highlight
the urgent need for our federal government to vigorously pursue and put an end to this sort
of Russian meddling.
Moreover, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy took the rhetoric to a whole new level by asserting
a diabolical Russian plot to shut down the U.S. electrical grid in the middle of winter ...a move
that would most certainly kill off half the state's population in an instant.
Of course, it didn't take long for the New York Times and ABC to latch on to the story since
it fits their "2016 election hacking" narrative so perfectly.
Alas, there was just one minor problem, namely that the entire article was completely fabricated.
Apparently the esteemed "journalists" of the Washington Post didn't even bother to contact the
Burlington Electric Department to confirm their bogus story...and why should they...it fit the
"Russian hacking" narrative so perfectly therefore it must be true, right?
Well, apparently not. The quick spread of WaPo's "fake news" story forced the Burlington Electric
Department to issue a clarifying statement assuring worried residents that, indeed, their electricity
grid had not been hacked, but rather a single "laptop not connected" to the grid had been found
to have a malware virus.
Which forced the embarrassed Washington Post to quickly tone down their provocative headline...
...and supplement their original article with the following "Editor's Note" admitting the entire
premise of their original story was nothing more than "fake news."
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had
penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The
computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.
Which drew quick reactions from twitter...
1) Not an infiltration of the power grid.
2) "Russian" malware can be purchased online by anyone.
3) See 1 & 2. https://t.co/bVIG8zQBsk
...and Glenn Greenwald of
The Intercept , who blasted WaPo for their " irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior."
THIS MATTERS not only because one of the nation's major newspaper once again published a
wildly misleading, fear-mongering story about Russia. It matters even more because it reflects
the deeply irrational and ever-spiraling fever that is being cultivated in U.S. political discourse
and culture about the threat posed by Moscow.
The Post has many excellent reporters and smart editors. They have produced many great stories
this year. But this kind of blatantly irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior – which
tracks what they did when promoting that grotesque PropOrNot blacklist of U.S. news outlets
accused of being Kremlin tools – is a by-product of the Anything Goes mentality that now shapes
mainstream discussion of Russia, Putin and the Grave Threat to All Things Decent in America
that they pose.
Ironically, a few weeks ago we noted that The Washington Post was all too happy to promote
an anonymous website that described Zerohedge as "'dark gray' propaganda, systematically deceiving
its civilian audiences for foreign political gain" (see "
Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton 'Sophisticated Russian Propaganda
Tools' "), all while presenting exactly zero evidence to support their preposterous claim.
Perhaps it's time for WaPo to dedicate a bit more of its time to self-reflection.
If WAPO is a business they're going to be having major problems - the CEO should be on the
case.
Reality:
an older, out of date, commercially available virus was discovered on an employee's laptop.
A single laptop, not connected to anything. Similar situation to many older computers around
the world. A total non-event.
Headline:
Russian Hackers penetrated US electricity grid! Not an iota of reality here, but which then
led to folks who still trust the WAPO, to all get in a tizzy and propose that the US blast
the evil Russian ogres! What we used to call highly irresponsible reporting.
So it was all a self-generated fantasy - why should we trust the WAPO on anything? If credibility
is their capital, they're burning through it at a great rate.
The Washington Post IS the new National Inquirer. The difference is... the original NI used
to have obviously laughable headlines. There is absolutely NOTHING funny about the lies spewed
from the WaPo sewer pipe. Their absurd headlines are a brazen attempt to lure the <80 IQ readership
into senseless rage over make-believe effronteries of a potential Russian adversary. It is
criminal and all of those responsible for the evil propaganda should be tried and executed.
Their time is over... no more crying "fire" in our theaters... no more screaming as they stab
US in the back. They must be overtly called out without fear of ostracism.
It occurs to me that by creating the "Fake News" meme, they've just given us a stick to beat
them with.
Recommend we do exactly that. Hard and repeatedly, to the point that the first thing anyone
thinks of when the words Washington Post, and New York Times are mentioned is "Fake News".
It just did, in Instanbul. CIA/Mossad has gone to war. Trying to drive wedge beween new Turkey/Russia
relationship, new since the <<failed>> CIA/Mossad coup attempt.
Don't think I'll be partying anywhere public tonight. One is way overdue in the US.
I was reading Freddie's link, Dave McGowan's work on the Laurel Canyon music and murder
scene, last night. It really got me thinking....has the CIA really been a Mossad operation
since the 60's? Who benefitted from the 60's flowerchild bullshit? I'd say, jews. Israel. That
shit really took traditional western values off the rails.
Regardless of the paper, I remember being a "paperboy" in the early 70's
I delivered the Quincy Patriot Ledger, and proudly. There were many malcontents on my route,
but I gave them top service regardless. The paper had to be folded only trice, never quad,
and had to be laid with the banner up. Quad folding was easier, and banner up meant placing
by hand, I never understand the idea of throwing a newspaper., like, how do get it to show
the customer the name/title?
Every customer had a passion, never this, always that, I remembered it all and still do.
The older shut in's wold love to catch me, talk my head off, I swear they doubled my route
time, but to this day I recall it and it taught me empathy.
Another year passes, and yes balz, why would anyone pay for an old dino.
...sooo, ummm...some "official" who finally wished to NOT remain anonymous, managed to throw
himself under the bus along with a fake nuuuz organization...lol.
Half the youth are strung out on heroin, as are more than half of the adults, there are
no industry but tourisim, and ski resorts, The infrasructure gets destroyed every three years
by storms that create what is called "freshetts", little streams that go wild with all the
water and wipe out anything in its way. I've seen that up close, no where to hide. when the
mountain gives up it's water, watch out.
Its a beutiful place. The west has its skyline far away, you survay it from a distance.
Vermont makes you hold it close, you can drive up a canyon with towering trees inches beside
you, a cliff wall pouring water just feet from a major roadway, and if you find a vista, it
just shows row upon row of more hills.
Interesting. You know, if the Enquirer could score a few authentic true news storys, I might
just be liken to buy a copy, you know, for the articles and such.
But the Rothchild would move in and fix it back for the fake shit. Fuckers.
We truly live in an era that we had visited once before. There is a boogeyman Russian spy under
every bed. Familiar?
Google "McCarthyism" if you don't know what it means. The Democratic establishment and their
media along with a good number of misguided Republicans in Congress are on a witch hunt.
Some day in the future they will look back at this time in history and wonder at the anti-Russian
hysteria.
I want to know the affiliation of the person owning (using) the utility's laptop. That would
be very interesting -- how did that malware get on the laptop with such effective timing?
bezos = bilderberg = western capitalism on the verge of collapse. economists and bankers are
not the most creative folks. but they can be vile and abusive.
Y'know, Bezos has been taking a (well deserved) beating for the WaPo's positions and "authentic"
news, etc. But, puleeze, let us not forget dear old Marty Barron. Last seen driving the Boston
Globe on a trajectory that cost the NY Times 95% of their "investment". Marty is the "proximate
cause" of this crap and is skating under the radar, cuz Bezos doesn't have a clue as to fucking
up the paper that badly. Marty, on the other hand, has experience in spades.
My only point of contention is calling the Washington Post "liberal", since when was pushing
for war liberal, or Wall Street. FYI. Clinton and Obama are not and were not liberals, they
are globalists, Zionists.
It shocks me at the generalization placed in organisations and individuals who could not
be further from the population.
Historically liberals were progressives, but the Zionist media does a little trick: They
call people like Obama and Clinton "left or liberal", thus everything they then do is considered
liberal or of the left. Like open borders, war on Syria/Libya, Russia, and supporting wall
street.
We all need to be smarter than the WaPo, and not put everything into neat little boxes.
These are globalists!
"... The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans. ..."
"... They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's home through intimidation of the landlord. ..."
I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy
Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional
experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening
and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.
Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After
all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was
happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news
and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking
the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about
the British Security Coordination (BSC)
The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public
opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against
people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans.
They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite
legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's
home through intimidation of the landlord.
What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a
war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.
How low Politico fall by publishing this neocon trash. Which probably belongs to some major neocon
publications which publish Kagan and like.
As Robert Parry noted "Neocons want a new Cold War – all the better to pick the U.S. taxpayers'
pockets – but this reckless talk and war profiteering could spark a nuclear war and leave the world
to the cockroaches"
Trading Places Neocons and Cockroaches – Consortiumnews
This "bloodthirsty Molly" is not a vampire. She is yet another female warmonger, a neocon of the
mold of Hillary Clinton, who lost her plush job with the ousting of Saakashvili in Georgia
and desperately wants it back even if American start ding for this "noble purpose".
Her article might be considered a classic in neocon demonization of Putin. Complete detachment from
the reality of collapsing neoliberal ideology and inability of the USA to maintain its global neoliberal
empire despite recent success in Ukraine (as well as Brazil and Argentina), the success which pushed
the majority of Ukrainian population on Central African standard of living with income less then two
dollars a day. And pensioners dying from hunger in cities, and lack of medical care in rural areas,
just to satisfy the US imperial ambitions. And they replaced corrupt and criminal neoliberal government
of Yanukovich with even more corrupt and more neoliberal Provisional Government first (which literally
was ready to privatize Ukraine state access to Western companies for pennies on the dollar) and then
Poroshenko which drive the economy even lower breaking all ties with its former major market -- Russia
-- for the ideological reasons, of course. The country became the debt salve of the West, another neo-colony.
The author is right the the West in now at war -- Cold War II, but he is lying that it sinot recognized
by Western government. It was launched by Western government to colonize Russia as neoliberalism needs
market expansion and cheap oil to sustain neoliberal globalization, and Russian is one of the few countries
on the Earth which not fully colonized (it was under Yeltsin).
Notable quotes:
"... Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones ..."
"... Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as " active measures " and " reflexive control " . Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests. ..."
Increasingly, people in Russia's sphere of influence were deciding that the values that were supposed
to bind the West together could no longer hold. That the world order Americans depend on had already
come apart.
... ... ...
What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants
to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad,
to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort
fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own
best interests.
... ... ...
Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the
Kremlin's new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be "green men," the unlabeled Russian-backed
forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the
wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference
in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising
effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward
for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through
the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.
... ... ...
First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively - not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It's
all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It's what Vladislav Surkov, Putin's 'grey
cardinal' and lead propagandist, dubbed "non-linear
war" in his science fiction story "Without Sky," in 2014.
Second, it's all one
war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and
other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives.
This is the
Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013.
Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin:
it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in
its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to
see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install
overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic
regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.
Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic
ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the
less obvious techniques known in Russia as "active
measures" and "reflexive
control". Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.
Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn't a foreign policy aimed at building a
new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it's what the Kremlin calls a "multi-vector" foreign policy, undermining
the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate - ideally temporary and limited - centers
of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an
unstable new world order of "all against all." The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by
both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe,
and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in 'solving' crises the West could not
(for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability
in the Middle East when the West cannot).
This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military
in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military
force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008
to disrupt the expansion
of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine
to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations
of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the
wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and
policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices.
How did we reach this point? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western security and political
alliances expanded to fill the zone of instability left behind. The emerging Russian security state
could only define this as the strategic advance of an enemy. The 9/11 attacks shattered Western concepts
of security and conflict and expanded NATO's new mission of projecting security. When Putin offered
his assistance, we effectively responded "no thanks," thinking in particular of his bloody, ongoing,
scorched-earth war against the Chechens. We did it for the right reasons. Nonetheless, it
infuriated Putin. This was the last moment when any real rapprochement with Putin's Russia was
possible.
... ... ...
Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and
strategic communications. She was an adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government from
2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015.
"... Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid . ..."
"... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] ..."
"... [was "penetration"] ..."
"... Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long. ..."
"... The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations. ..."
"... Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration. ..."
"... In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it. ..."
"... Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]? ..."
"... Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. ..."
"... But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now. ..."
"... NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries. ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 01, 2017 @05:12PM from the power-play dept.
Those
anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of
a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop
that wasn't actually connected to the
grid .
The Washington Post has updated their original story, which now reports that "authorities"
say there's no indication that Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. electric grid. The Post's
newly-edited version appears below (with their original, now-deleted text preseved inside brackets).
A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration
has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility
, according to U.S. officials. While
the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials
who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores
the vulnerabilities of the nation's electrical grid... [Was "the penetration of the nation's
electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."]
American officials, including one senior administration official, said they are not yet sure what
the intentions of the Russians might have been. The incursion [was "penetration"]
may have
been designed to disrupt the utility's operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they
could penetrate a portion of the grid... According to the report by the FBI and DHS, the hackers
involved in the Russian operation used fraudulent emails that tricked their recipients into revealing
passwords. The Vermont utility does report that they'd "detected suspicious Internet traffic"
on the laptop, but they believe subsequent news coverage got the story wrong. "It's unfortunate that
an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading
to multiple inaccurate reports around the country."
Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international
law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew
Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the
world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern
should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of
the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've
been getting their asses kicked for so long.
As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go
down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of
behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.
"... the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable..."
The U.S. government
has many secret and semi-secret agencies. No one, literally no one, knows all of them, or which
are badly managed. As we've seen, the secret and semi-secret U.S. government agencies often hire
outside consulting companies that often have areas of sloppy management. The U.S. government is,
by some measures, such as money spent, the most violent in the world.
The U.S. government has
killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world
war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations.
Bush and Cheney started a war that
was profitable for them. The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any
country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations.
While the phishing attack may have originated in Russia, I find it disingenious to portray
everything as state sponsored when the evidence is weak at best. To me its something akin to suggesting
we need to retaliate against Australia every time Julian Assange takes a leak.
Some organizations started to inject fake phishing emails into their communication systems.
All employees who clicked get their heads bashed with a rock.
Anonymous Coward, December 31, 2016 @10:44AM (
#53584563
)
Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website,
or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up
to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration
has done, and undermine the incoming administration.
Or the WP feels it is simply unimportant
to get proper attribution and any of the details right.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware
and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware
on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of
care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about
that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a
fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our
power grid.
What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?
I'm very happy to come to the comments section and find mostly mocking and people who looked
beyond the headline. Would have been nice if the editors did that.
According to an earlier post the laptop that was allegedly infected was not connected to the
electric company's grid control system. That conclusion answered my first question. Any vital
utility system should absolutely never have it's control system of computers connected to the
Internet. If somehow that's the case, those responsible need a very long prison sentence. There
also needs to be other security measures to prevent folks having direct access to these control
systems from sabotaging them.
Worked in the industry for a decade. Wrote simulation shells that did short term forecasts
based on on system conditions, did data reductions etc (e.g. This unit IS going down for unscheduled
maintenance, how much will it cost to shut it down RTF now vs after afternoon peak?) Went on to
'tech lead' for significant energy trading/risk management platform. Ran on many traders and grid
operators desks...don't ask, won't tell. Did once see a bug because grand total on printable VAR
only had room for 10 digits plus sign. Assigned to Brahmin coder, week later I fixed it myself,
I digress.
What you say isn't really possible. What they typically do have is a secure network, which
runs operations, staffed with lots of ex-military actual Engineering school grads. That network
is being monitored by redundant data integrators which present integrated (by some time interval,
usually hours/half hours or minutes, back when I was up to my nose in it) system data to a second
less secure (but still as secure as any corporate) network where routine operations run. That
server is usually locked down tight, read only from the less secure network; but that is only
software. They also like to run diverse OSs, lots of 'big iron' and Unixes and home brewed binary
data formats. These things were mostly architected before Windows was common, particularly on
the secure side it's still loaded with 'legacy', likely to remain so until they have a complete
staff turnover. Old Dilbert with neckbeard flipping a nickle at Wally and telling him to get a
better computer, that's the dude.
Routine operations need access to internet based facilities. To schedule transmission line
capacity, trade power, get closing prices from grid operators, weather forecasts and unit availability
from neighbors (lots of VPNs). But that part of the operations could more or less crash and burn
and it will only cost money (and extra CO2). Operations, more or less, ignores trading at the
minute by minute level. Trading gives them trade schedules and operations will try their best.
But if 'shit happens' they keep the lights on and let the accountants worry about reconciling
to 'what should have happened'. Which is sometimes a bitch of a computational problem, fortunately
most everybody involved are engineers and close enough is close enough. Pennies aren't statistically
significant; try and explain that to an accountant. Don't recommend it, just say 'not a material
difference' and get on with your life, I'm digressing again.
Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why
this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was
running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she
transmitted classified information [politifact.com]?
Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding
people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information
wouldn't have helped her.
But publishing it now helps support the
false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not
disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect
Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's
the entire reason the story is being written and published now.
Further reading here
[battleswarmblog.com] and here
[battleswarmblog.com].
What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January
20?
NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by
mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems
secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries.
If am I to believe this Russian hacking our systems like the Government is pushing, then the
blame goes straight on the NSA and those who backed them.
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated,
hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to
our organization's grid systems."
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated,
hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected
to our organization's grid systems."
So other
sources [cnn.com] say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of
the grid
In my opinion,
a good indication of Jeff Bezos's management ability is any Amazon web page. Amazon web pages
distract you from buying something by trying to sell other things.
"... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country,
the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke
Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
"... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk
with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in
the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the
rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
"... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator
on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White
House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand
marshal. ..."
"... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of
integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called
it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs
a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
"... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan
mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.
..."
"... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore
and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
"... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response
miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
"... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's
gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection
to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running
WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
"... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS
report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
"... s committed to stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
"... *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on
the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility. ..."
"... The Good Spy (2014) ..."
"... Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) ..."
"... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
Vladimir #Putin: I am inviting all children of the #US diplomats in #Russia to the #NewYear's
and #Christmas celebration in the #Kremlin
When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, he stood 6 ft 1 in tall. As he exits, his
stature has diminished to about 6 inches.
Google adds that his daughter Malia has the same 6 ft 1 in height as her dad. If she ends up
following the unwritten but almost universally observed rule that a woman's partner should at
least equal her height, it's going to really restrict the candidate pool. Only 11 percent of males
20-29 years old are 6 ft 1 in or more, according to the Census Bureau.
With regards to parenting, Barack and Michelle Obama are doing the right thing ie. ensuring
a supportive learning environment at home so their kids develop their own critical thinking skills
and are better equipped to make their own way in the world as they mature (similar to the Deutschers
with their daughter Alma, likewise those of two other child music prodigies, Emily Bear and Jay
Greenberg.)
So, Malia will know as and when required to run hoops around any basketballer (!), on the other
hand, the young girl in the following family may well, in some instances, actually require a few
basketballers run hoops around her father and his misplaced parenting priorities/concerns!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/girl-9-faces-shunned-ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-eating-mcdonalds/
What a gray, joyless life Orthodox men must lead, prevented from socializing with girls and
women, with only their dusty old tomes of Judaic law for company.
Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse:
Bush43 v 0bama question.
Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to
be "yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment.
0bama still sucks".
IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even
Worse than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting
these 2 policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried
quickly to privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43
focus seemed to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43
rejected some of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting
Cheney's desired Iran War.
IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than
1S1S or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising
Medicare eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future.
TPP's pharma patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings
might exceed the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion).
Furthemore, 0bama could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option
in ~2010 with Sen & House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported
by FDL's Jane Hamsher & others.
Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing
to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would
have been worse.
"What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz
How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you
expect of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare
into an ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other
1981-now Reganesque Presidents.
It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century.
#AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm.
Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the
Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated
100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't
even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens
without trial.
Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that
receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs,
expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
Libya.
Expansion of our droning program.
While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria
mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel
before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.
Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.
Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of
the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded
upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait
we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.
And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli
determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed
there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?
I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late
in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But
see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are
probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.
But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been
at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices
– something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization
and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down
the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible
to stop the wheel.
As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison
that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.
Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included
Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which
as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them
absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime
in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks
on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his
Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents.
Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist
to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House.
History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any
remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations
of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation
where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently
branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.
"HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it
the norm."
Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.
I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous
presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing
we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.
I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see
Chain of Title by David
Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What
to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of
it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage
fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in
the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase
Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable
to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.
* The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities
are accountable under the law.
* The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental
rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
* The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair,
and efficient.
* Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals
who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities
they serve.
I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about
the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.
The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by
the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism.
Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced
by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the
neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting
homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but
that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit
the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable
rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods
in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is
connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.
However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining
to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent
representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect
the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there,
and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation.
But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair.
This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns
of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and
then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law
officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy
taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value
= Trillions?
Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is
the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours
to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of
mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same
makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the
pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of
honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of
Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of
course also work their playbooks on other folks.
To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies
to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism
and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of
the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle
East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader
will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig
into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule
of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance
and mortgage industries.
Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
Office of Population Research, Princeton University
I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played
important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.
GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort
of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy
stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities
in both house of Congress.
Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features
of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you
get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented
the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until
decades have passed, if we make it that long.
Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama
should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he
was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.
You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago
Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of
Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable
that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the
"message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it
was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid
calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two
Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed
over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might
be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general.
Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?
The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan
wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had
and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and
ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and
workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president
Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began
the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines
and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.
And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign,
even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.
dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the
throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe
anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was
a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..
the grey lady
5-11-2008
In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin
Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the
country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz
greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.
Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known
in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to
walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year
later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard
than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.
But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States
senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on
a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer,
Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.
but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)
A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion
of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington
had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy
black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.
At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods
blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white
Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a
perfect fit.
"He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor
and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go
to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."
also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the
bud billiken parade
peaceful, fun, successful
heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence
might confuse the closet racists
There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.
The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:
The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in
the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed.
Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including
two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation
involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around
12:30 pm.[39][40]
From the "self-drive get cars will exacerbate organ shortages" article, my first thought was
that it surely is a shame that fewer healthy vehicle drivers/passengers will end up as accident
victims, thus denying their delicious organs to the deathly ill. There must be something we can
do to rectify this impending catastrophe.
A few other ways out:
1) Flying cars will bring the injury rate back up.
2) Breeding program to make up the shortfall.
3) Proliferating superbugs will make surgery dangerous again, so that people won't want organ
transplants.
I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis,
back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal
the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or
is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be
underplaying or overplaying his hand.
I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security
state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says
to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact,
they refuse to accept it and him.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
"The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like
Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by
a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
"The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various
actors:
The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.
The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records
10 million hacks a day.
The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.
That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.
Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
=============================================================
WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies
and software companies to make their stuff more secure .
{{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman
and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards"
for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged
to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the
Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}
And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the
laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems
LESS SECURE .
So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made
it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things,
but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators
and I will certainly will be over a period of time."
And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long,
and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"
Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently
only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking
.
The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump?
Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his
previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians? Plenty of people
are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim,
Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington
is celebrity. My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly
less brown nosers. Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside,
she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career.
This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats"
such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go
to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid).
How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary
primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.
Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary
should have been dumped ages ago.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump
by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead
to materialize if at all.
If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to
never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements
by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then
this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment.
And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.
Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance
by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria
that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia
like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied.
All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the
citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.
Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why
this?
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive
response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.
Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response
would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware
that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.
And this:
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election.
He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.
Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite
circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.
How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference
in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't
hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all
over them.
As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that.
And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for
a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves
quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning
with Russia with nuclear holocaust.
If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?
Ukraine
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
Honduras
Egypt
Yemen
Iraq
Palestinians
Libya
Paraguay
Turkey?
Brazil?
Argentina?
Thailand?
Hong Kong?
Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable
that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just
wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on
turn watch though.
It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance
than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.
I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something
that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read
critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.
It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would
be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.
On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally
– obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag
when you are using a name that has been used before.
I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report
on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'
"Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him
a bottle!"
So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is
says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And
his face will be like
this .
"warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.
As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss
warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly
worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.
And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something
for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan
interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if
the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush
pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but
still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the
Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course
domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away
fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism.
My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power
with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never
let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At
the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted
for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You
may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure.
There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than
they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better
than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great
Recession. We have not recovered.
Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for
establishment approval.
The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry
to share this tidbit, but I must:
On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson
Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.
And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe
it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including
Yours Truly.
My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes
later, I left the rally.
Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was
not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?
He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years
to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile
congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.
Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat,
he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged
things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black
guy.
If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost
Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.
The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a
lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you
want to be right?"
.
The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important:
the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And
so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that
tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before
you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage
die on?
..
While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that
what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with
many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've
even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying
habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances.
There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is
justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own
behavior.
======================================================
Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity
can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever
fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.
As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked
us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex,
or party .
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the
articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested
in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to
seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that
results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether
you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles
at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in
pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing
this tragedy:
Conclusion:
For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the
impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.
Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive
aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.
Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has
instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always
red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie
in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make
something up."
Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the
ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his
Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be
so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.
Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate
and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility.
Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark.
See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was
at fault.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived
(emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.
It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the
intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain
had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried
"hacking."
Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.
I think you're right.
On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly
influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally
subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred
candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.
So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before
Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!
Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet
president.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone
a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting
websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.
Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by
the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is
4.1.1b.
I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has
to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting.
VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems
less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S.
Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."
Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials
seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise
on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.
The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am
here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started
checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected
to the grid.
Here's a summary from
emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this
grid story.
The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization*
with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.
Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing
his emails is simply not interfering with the election.
*They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S,
government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.
Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!
Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
All the trade sanctions???
The Chinese import restrictions???
DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this
ACT OF WAR????
Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most
countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm
most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer
many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of
being overwhelmed.
Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement
would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to
block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could
move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would
dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are
threats to every neoliberal promise.
There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal.
Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies
about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code
in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.
Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic
claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the
Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric
Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."
So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric
grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed
the Post's claim were based on fiction.
========================================
Thanks for that marym!
I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress"
that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red
Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now
than it was than .
If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's
origin:
The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress
plugin that protects websites against hacking.
If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among
its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.
Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin,
your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's
annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.
So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!
Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one
week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to
make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian
rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.
Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually
aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think
these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead
they raze the place.
The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor
to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of
gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site
are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.
Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years
ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts
colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into
place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath
them when it happens.
Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where
after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from
the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after
getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually
knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh
was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud
was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."
Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news
stories?
Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an
update in any of the ~posts here on NC.
Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?
For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of
hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.
Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
1) Haiti – a failed state
2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream
media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate
welfare
4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes
completely unpunished
5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
6) Hillary Clinton
7) NAFTA
8) increase in childhood poverty
9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her)
intervened.
While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think
many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important
point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally
effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges.
He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat.
Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this
luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.
"Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
But what about about an oligarchy?
Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be
an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.
Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY
effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before
it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance"
that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative
democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we
step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.
No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader
and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes
to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one
Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically
(within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances
than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world
leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative
democracy.
Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem
to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.
I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.
So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution,
am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with
autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people
just want to see the world burn.
The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution.
I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.
What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like
I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.
Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?
Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty
of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to
watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve
that or worse.
Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor
their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem
for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus
the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?
I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how
inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just
by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might
be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat
to ALL nations of the world.
And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security
Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations
of the world.
How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial
Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them
back later.
More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost
of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because
we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.
In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.
I don't disagree.
For me, teading the story brought up this segue:
The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull.
Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured
in movies but wow is it something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc
Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian
Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership
may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana
governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to
have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.
For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the
president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback
from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
===================================================================
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many
and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to
continue the very lucrative cold war funding.
I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned
on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should
be punished?"
Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear.
It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion.
But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.
Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain
Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt
Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us
at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).
The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same
difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent
people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .
Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?
Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis
Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's
"conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure
are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."
"Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly
will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the
United States."
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough.
========================================
I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the
people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part
et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As
for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling
that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus
does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.
A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at Northeastern since
leaving MGH. I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends). There
were 3 groups that shared space.
A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at
Northeastern since leaving MGH . I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends).
There were 3 groups that shared space.
capacity by an estimated 250 million tonnes this year and to reduce the share of coal in its
energy mix to 62.6 percent by 2016. The country also intends to modernise its coal-fired power
plants by 2020 to reduce emissions of "major pollutants" by 60 percent and i s committed to
stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". Environmental NGOs are nonetheless cautious,
worried in particular about the unbridled construction of new coal-fired power plants in China,
at the rate of almost two new projects per week in 2015 alone – even though there may ultimately
be little need for the extra capacity. (AFP)
Hacking and leaking; something one does when the flu is in town?
The government claims the Russians hacked something not connected to the internet and expect everyone
to believe it. All that is waiting now is the 200,000 IT specialists that could read the code
and would disagree.
this time, the big lie is going to be dispelled in every coffee shop, workplace and wifi hotspot
in the land. The IT folks are going to be asked by their friends and customers if it is true or
not, and it will all unravel.
Why would our government make claims so easy to demolish?
Why? Because they work. And once people act on them, it becomes almost impossible to get them
to admit they were hugely and publicly wrong. Propaganda and advertising are similar in that the
message doesn't have to make sense, it just has to achieve the intended result.
I don't share your faith in the power of facts to dispel beliefs that confirm cherished myths.
ISTM that beliefs, world views, come first, and "facts" are noticed, selected, and accepted relative
to their support thereof.
It's a fact that genocide of native Americans was official US policy. "The only good Indian
is a dead Indian." It's a fact that treaties were "negotiated" at gunpoint. It's a fact that we
broke them anyway. It's a fact that we stole millions of acres. It's a fact that we have no intention
of returning stolen property.
It's a fact that freedmen were promised "40 acres and a mule." It's a fact that that promise
is still unfulfilled.
It's a fact that the Tonkin Gulf "incident" did not happen as reported. Still, many, maybe
even most Americans believe we were attacked, and further, that we had to stop the dreaded "domino
effect."
It's a fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies. It was an illegal war of aggression.
And still is. Nevertheless, anyone who participates in uniform is a "hero." And anyone who reveals
exactly how effed up was our prosecution of that illegal war is, in "fact," a most scurrilous
villain. Just try defending Manning or Snowden to diehard American Exceptionalists.
It's a fact that US forces tortured people in black sites all over the world. It's a fact that
the Convention Against Torture demands investigation and prosecution. It's a fact that our constitutional
scholar-president looked "forward, not backward," putting our government in breach of the CAT.
Where are the impeachment proceedings for this high crime?
I could go on and on. It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. Fact is, beliefs do.
Unfortunately, you are exactly right. It seems humans are just hard wired to be cheerleaders
for their own team, tribe, country .beliefs come first, and than cherry picked facts, or facts
too good to check that support the beliefs.
I have said it a million times, I believe the most difficult thing for a human to do is admit
they were wrong about something.
Thanks, fd, glad you agree. I (almost ;) always enjoy your comments.
I'm not so sure "unfortunately" is the word I'd use, though. More like "naturally." I don't
regret being more belief-driven than data-driven. I think it's only natural. I think if people
were honest, they'd admit they are, too. Or am I supposed to think they're Mr. Data? That's what
makes us human, right? I think the mythological is a realm of human experience just as natural
as is the psychological.
It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. But first we'll have to come to a more universal
agreement as to exactly what world/universe/multiverse we're living in. I think it'd behoove us
to take into consideration the world views of those we oppose. We can't assume we're living in
the same world. ISTM we're often bringing facts to faith-based arguments. And that even we, who
have faith in the scientific method, make them, too.
All the data in the world won't move people unless it's in a narrative and/or symbolic form
that speaks to people directly, no thought required, like art does. Ask climate change scientists.
The scary thing is, as Red Scare 2.0 shows, or Trump's entire campaign, the opposite is true,
too. If you hit the right notes, it doesn't even have to make sense. Works almost as well as the
flashy thing (neuralizer) in Men In Black. Not because we're stupid "sheeple" (how I hate that
phrase!), but because we're "human, all too human."
PS: Regarding admitting mistakes. You won't mind, then, if I point out that you often use "than"
when I think you mean "then." I like it when others kindly point out my mistakes, so in that spirit.
there is an 'annie' commenting above on the taibbi piece who is not me! and does not express
my sentiments at all.
i'd thought that one's user name was sacrosanct here. i've been using 'annie' for many years on
n.c.
I was spoofed ONCE on this site – I was gonna change my moniker to the "realfresnodan" but
through sheer laziness, I never got around to it and it ?never? happened again. I don't know,
but I imagine software that verifies your address has to allow a different address or computer
at least once, otherwise one would have to change your moniker every time you bought a new computer
or changed your internet provider, etc.
Plus, when the new secret police come to get me, I will always have the defense, "its documented
that I am being spoofed!!!" I LOVE OBAMA/TRUMP/BUSH!!! – I can't decide who I love more!!!! (need
I say sarc?)
We'll look into the general issue. Of course deliberately impersonating another commenter isn't
okay, but sometimes two people take the same user name simply by accident.
Outis, is it possible to tweak the registration/post-processing setup so each commenter's profile
is stored as a unique UID/email-address pair, and someone attempting to use a UID already linked
to a different e-mail gets a "sorry, this userid is already taken" error message? Seems like a
pretty basic anti-spoofing measure for any halfway-decent comments system to support.
That will cause me problems, since my personal situation has me using three different devices,
no, five counting computers where I now only occasionally work, to participate here. But it's
not my space, so it goes. Protect the discourse. Besides, no one seems to think it worth spoofing
me .
If the proposed system included information about the device, it would be unworkable for precisely
the reason you mention. I can imagine a way to work around that, but it may or may not be feasible
- it will depend on the flexibility of the back end. I'll try to look into it.
From the multiple posts of the same msg by several people, I get the feeling that others are
having the same experience I am: I scribble, click "post comment," and then get a white screen
rather than a return to a posted, moderated or disappeared comment in the thread. I refresh the
page, which then warns me that "this comment has already been posted" on a white screen. I re-load
NC, search out my insert point, and maybe the note is there, maybe not. And if I pick the option
offered in a text box when refreshing from the white screen, to 're-send the form,' it usually
results in a multiple post of the same text. I have tried refreshing the screen and even re-booting,
same thing happens. Just offering my experience with the site lately. This started a couple of
days ago.
Even though I have weighed in, the truth is that who was worse for the country Obama or Bush
really won't be decided until more time has passed after Obama has left office. Think of it this
way, we didn't have a clear view of how many disastrous choices/decisions/terrible legislation
was part of the Clinton administration until years after he left. The full force of NAFTA hadn't
been felt, the devastation of Welfare Reform would only get deeper and deeper, and then there
was the repeal of Glass Steagall and the Gramm Bliley Leach atrocity that in reality has been
a leading component in the world wide Depression we are still dealing with (and with no FDR unfortunately
some of us are waiting for crash pt. 2). Just think how much worse it would have been if he hadn't
been impeached and got his entitlement reform. I have to give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky
Earned Benefit Savior Award for managing to derail Obama's multiple attempts at the same, but
similar to Bill it will merely be a "and it could have been worse foot note" to his history. But
whatever else the last three Presidents do have one thing in common all have ended their terms
with a lot of Americans, probably even most demanding change.
Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and while it is more likely that
Trump will just accelerate the descent this country has been on for over three decades that part
of me still sings that it might not be that way and sees chance for sanity and humanity to triumph
over greed, selfishness and corruption. Unlike Dickinson's my version was abashed for most of
the last six years, and it could become dormant and silent in even less time for Trump. But it
still exists, still beats and still sings and will again for Americans do not give up on change,
someday we will get it in the manner we really want.
" give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky Earned Benefit Savior Award "
THAT IS RICH!!!
hmmmmm .was the sloppiness of the fore mentioned young lady uh, hiding the evidencedue to her
being a repub "undercover" agent? Hmmmmmm ..
Seems to me it doesn't matter, except as a debating point or for bragging rights or tribal
supremacy, or other inconsequentialisms, which figurehead was "worse for the country. " Seems
to me there's not much of a "country" remaining. And from the standpoint of this one ordinary
person, GWB/BHO are just file tabs in the Rulers' great cabinet of horrors.
But may I offer the obligatory and mostly sincere traditional wishes to all here, that you
have a peaceful and kindly New Year!
Indeed, isn't the obsession with ranking a major driver of the emptiness of liberalism as the
game is played? It's learned, I'm certain; I'm as certain it can be unlearned, given stern enough
measures.
Coming back hours after I read it to say I love this comment, and I love the extention of the
Dickinson metaphor. Let us sing and beat our wings until the vibration cracks the bars on our
cage.
"Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of
experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian
intentions. But darker suspicions persist."
The editorial concluded by connecting the president-elect's "odd behavior" toward Russia with
his lack of transparency when it comes to his business empire.
"Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the
campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives?" The newspaper
speculated.
"We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the
face of a clear threat from Russia, matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect,
cannot be easily explained."
==========================================================
SO it begins ..
I was thinking my impeachment hypothesis was premature, given Trump hasn't even been sworn
in ..but now I don't think so.
The recording of the chant in the virtual Ayia Sofia embedded in the American Conservative
story is indeed beautiful. There has also been considerable speculation about the acoustics in
San Marco in Venice, which is also a modified Byzantine layout. One writer points out that more
than one choir was stationed in San Marco, so as to enhance the polyphony. I wonder if this was
the case in Ayia Sophia, with its gigantic galleries.
I was reminded of the importance of the tradition of chanting (no musical instruments) among
the Orthodox Christians and the Churches of the East. It is a distinctive tradition not much known
in the U S of A, where people like to make claims that unimportant splinter groups like the Seventh
Day Adventists have universal appeal. (But so much of "American religion" is so thoroughly parochial–and
we are sure to be treated to much much much more of its certainties in the Trump cabinet.) Ayia
Sofia, the church of the holy and divine wisdom is a cautionary tale about universal appeals,
as is its new, thoroughly iconoclatic decor.
Ayia Sofia is indeed a contraditory place, as the article notes. It is suffused with the Istanbul
melancholy that Orhan Pamuk describes. Not so far away, in the Fatih neighborhood, and higher
up, the Suleimaniye mosque (built by the Sinan the convert) also glows in contradictory splendor.
Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
"Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even
reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas
tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!
I have a question for anyone who's been around a little while. Has political/media rhetoric
always been as inflated and over the top as it is now? ie Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber
pearl harbor."
Is this old hat or something caused by the attention economy?
This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for stodgy journalism.
Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms that sounded comparatively measured and
adult, not like hysterical kids on a playground.
I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been watching a lot of MSNBC
and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't believe how over the top they are about the Russian
hacking story – it goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news period
and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the time? I have no idea why this is
going on about the Russian hacking unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions
about Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators too are in on this?
They make it sound very serious and yet it seems everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.
Good question Pespi. I don't know, but it seems worse to me. But its kinda like asking a fish
if its drier than it used to be – we live in a media world, and its not so much the answers they
give, but the questions they ask. I'm so old I remember when Obama MOCKED Ronmey for asserting
the Russians were a threat ..But no one asks Obama how the harmless Russkies became a threat on
his watch .
AND I am old enough to remember when the the press was considered leftish because of Vietnam
and cynicism about government pronouncements. So this belief by the press in the virtue of the
CIA is something that I have a tough time processing .
I offer my subjective opinion, not backed up by anything other than that I've been around for
4+ decades.
The level of brazenly open propagandizing is unprecedented. It was over the top through much
of the election cycle, and now it's gone completely off the rails. The credibility of a) the politicians,
b) the news agencies, and c) the 3 letter agencies behind the current balls-to-the-wall effort
is at risk of being completely destroyed. Apparently they think the stakes are that high that
they are all in on this.
I think it has to do with repealing the law that put some limits on the ability of the govt
to propagandize it's own people. Journalists now print whatever bs some anonymous official sends
them, no questions ask, or alternately sit on twitter.
You folks need to go back in time to the 18th and 19th and early 20th Centuries in America,
when political invective was both more colorful, vicious, and inventive than the fairly bland
Bernaysian sauce and tribal butt-baring and chest-thumping that's au courant.
RE: Russia Reaches Syria Cease-Fire Pact With Turkey- and the U.S. Had Nothing to Do With It
Why would Iran and Hezbollah go along with it? The only plausible answer I can think of is
that neither believe this cease fire will last. Already there are unconfirmed reports of renewed
jihadi-rebel in-fighting and hostilities between pro-government forces and the not-so-moderate
rebels.
Re: Brexit vote sparks rush of British Jews seeking Portuguese passports
Amusingly, Jews in Britain actually voted as a majority in favor of Brexit. Perhaps the press
is furthering anti-semitic stereotypes which claim that Jews seek internationalism and consolidation
of power at the expense of local governance? You might consider posting articles on this sensitive
subject which are more than just a description of an event followed by pointing and sputtering.
Linkage is not endorsement. It may be difficult for those that prize bourgeois loyalty and
tribal exceptionalism - you know, Americans - to understand, but there it is.
It's a big Internet, paid Democrat troII. There are many places for you to ply your trade where
you would be welcome.
RE: Russia's response to Obama 'is frankly the most damaging and embarrassing answer we could
receive'
I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy
Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional
experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening
and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.
Consider the following
RE: Something About This Russia Story Stinks
Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After
all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was
happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news
and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking
the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about
the British Security Coordination (BSC)
The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public
opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against
people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans.
They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite
legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's
home through intimidation of the landlord.
What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a
war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.
inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run
by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Checks and Balances designed to "safeguard" Government
are working to insure the Rich keep their control.
Naivete/Willful Ignorance is such a frightening mindset. Watching others, who have no clue,
speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America) is, say, compared to Mother Russia's
version proves how well American have been "trained." American Exceptionalism! Because America!!!
scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching
the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something
I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no
matter what you call it.
It isn't just apparent the parties have morphed, the base of the parties have also. It looks
like about the same number of Rs believed at one time O was born in Kenya as Ds believe Russia,
Russia, Russia took the win from their beloved oligarch Clinton (52%).
the future we leave for our children. Will they forgive us? Can we forgive ourselves? How'd
that hope and change work out? No worry, rump to the rescue! Happy New Year everyone! And thanks
to NC for all you do!
*I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to
yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment
can be attributed to my gullibility.
Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon
came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a
pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized
as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a
time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection
that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.
-The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence
chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil
War.
-The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch"
Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants,
Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later
a cop in California.
Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program
during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a
cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present
at the time Nimr died.
-Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil
but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if
you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings
involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh
is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.
Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that
I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests
it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.
-The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy
defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably
is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that
such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.
Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.
Re: Canadian Hemisphere: I have always been ashamed of Canadian mining and resources extractors
who work in other countries, especially Latin America. Most Canadians think of themselves as fair
and judicious but that is not always true when it comes to mining in foreign countries. Canadian
mining companies have despoiled land, water and air while exploiting workers' human rights. It
is a depressing aspect of Canadian resource imperialism which is every bit as destructive as any
other "imperial" adventure.
inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run
by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Thanks to Congress, Republican and Democrats, Partners
in Crime. All those "Checks and Balances" designed to "safeguard" Government are working,for sure,
but now working to insure the Rich keep their control. The Republican and the Vichy Party/Democrats
make sure "Government" does whatever Business wants. Who need competition when you own The US
Government! not Capitalism!, that's for sure. or as i've heard, Capitalism can only be failed.
Like Conservatism. The age old scam of stealing from the Poor to give to the Rich.
Watching others, who offer platitudes, speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America)
is, say, compared to Mother Russia's version, proves how well Americans have been "trained." American
Exceptionalism! Because America!!! I know very little about Russia, but i know a lot more about
how we/Americans are being scammed. That is what Congress is for.
scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching
the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something
I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no
matter what you call it.
of course, then again, i can see who is stealing what from whom, and it ain't pretty to watch
it go on, year after year. Thanks to Congress and the American Voter, we have reaped the whirlwind.
>The Virtual Hagia Sophia The American Conservative
"The sense of tragedy over the fate of the great cathedral is unlike anything I've ever felt."
Hahaha. Ahhhhh, Christians. "This giant Church being converted into a Mosque dedicated to the
same Abrahamic God is a great tragedy." Get over yourselves. It's a poncy over-enginereed shrine.
I'm rather partial to the Bagan Hindu temple complex in Myanmar/Burma, to the Buddhist temples
in Borobudur, Java,and to the Abu Simbel temples in southern Egypt. It's a pity the giant Buddhas
of Bamiyan, Afghanistan, are gone.
Let us state the obvious: None of these men are Roman Emperors, and they haven't got the wherewithal
to "blow up" anything but a stock market bubble. They are not Lex Luthors or Gandalfs or Stalins.
Their products do not bring about revolutions. They are simply robber barons, JP Morgans and Andrew
Mellons in mediocre T-shirts. I have no doubt that many are preternaturally intelligent, hardworking
people, and it is a shame that they have dedicated these talents to the mundane accumulation of
capital. But there is nothing remarkable about these men. The Pirates of Silicon Valley do not
have imperial ambitions. They have financial ones.
The vast majority of Silicon Valley startups, the sort that project lofty missions and managed
improbably lucrative IPOs despite never having graced the cover of The Economist or the frontal
cortex of the president, work precisely like any other kind of mundane sales operation in search
of a product: Underpaid cold-callers receive low wages and less job security in exchange for a
foosball table and the burden of growing a company as quickly as possible so that it can reach
a liquidation event. Owners and investors get rich. Managers stay comfortable. The employees get
hosed. None of this is particularly original. At least the real robber barons built the railroads.
==============================
Why IS Facebook, a not nearly as crappy email system, worth so much money?
Thats like asking why do intestinal parasites want to eat your sh*t? No, they want to eat YOU
.
Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was
importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons, not to mention allowing them to
slip into hiding without any real effort made to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence
that we are now engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been
granted dispensation to go public.
Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were really just poor souls
who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for their families and were, therefore, only too
happy to embrace the joys of American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence
that similar fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention throughout
Europe.
But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum, and besides most
of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that stuff. Right?
(to beat this dead horse a little more)
Taibbi making his serious journo bones? "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is
even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit
the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin
response as you'll find."
"He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!
sorry about multiple posts, I kept getting a screen that NC page wasn't working, and remembered
about the site update finally
don't think my comment was that wonderful, and happy new year
o "Why Google co-founder Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars | Vox" - Because haedlines
about such squillionaire "thought leader" pipe dreams keep his name in the news and help to goose
Google's share price? Nah, that couldn't be it
o "Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse | Slashdot (Chuck L)" - Because they'll
kill off all the bicyclists in Year 1, leading to a donor-organ boom/bust?
o "Scientists edge closer to bringing back from the dead the fabled aurochs, giant wild cattle
that once roamed Europe's forests | Telegraph" - Without a roamable forest for the critters to
live in, what's the point - more animal cruelty?
AVs and people will have to be kept separate once the market has benefited from the needed
short term boom in organs. AVs can't even handle fixed red lights let alone moving objects. Perhaps
pedestrian overpasses or simply ban cars on every fourth street and designate to bikes and pedestrians.
Profit! There will be a market for aurochs . canned hunting expeditions on private property
and niche meat like they do with bison provided they don't carry brucellosis
.
They gotta foam the roadway, man. Set quotas and stuff like that. And, hey, when it's time
for David Rockefeller to get heart #11, he can just Uber it.
"... For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated. ..."
"... Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it? ..."
"... I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare . ..."
"... But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say . ..."
"... The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner. ..."
"... These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that. ..."
"... b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...' ..."
"... so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose. ..."
"... tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well ..."
"... the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain. ..."
"... while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. ..."
"... VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi. ..."
"... that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him! ..."
"... "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ." ..."
"... It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media. ..."
"... I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family. ..."
"... Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid. ..."
"... Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war." The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday. McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. ..."
"... Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. ..."
"... I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction. ..."
"... Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS. ..."
"... Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen. ..."
"... Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail. ..."
"... These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick. ..."
All recent claims of "Russian hacking" are either outright false or are based on "evidence" that
only shows run-of-the-mill attacks by some anonymous basement hacker.
The year 2016 saw the person elected U.S. president who Jeff Bezos' propaganda rag, the Washington
Post, hated most. To celebrate the end of this very bad year its writers and editors decided to put
more egg on their faces. It first published the piece promoted
on the left
and some three hours later the fundamentally "corrected" one
on the right
.
The claim in the first piece, based on anonymous "officials", was that Russia hacked into the
U.S. electricity grid through a utility company in Vermont. But then the utility companies in question,
Burlington Electric, issued a
statement that a recent scan of its IT systems had found only one laptop with some malware and
that the laptop in questions was not connected to its networks at all. There was nothing found on
any net-connected system. It had reported the find to the federal U.S. government. (Some very shortsighted
"officials" immediately abused the confidential company information to miss-inform the Washington
Post.) The utility company found the malware by scanning for a malware signature published in a lame
recent assessment by Homeland Security and the FBI.
Dubious claims of foreign hacking of the electricity grid have already been made
in 2009 . Its an old
trick of the Obama administration to achieve some political aims. The Washington Post was obviously
so eager to publish another of its daily "Russian hacking" fakes that it did not even ask the two
Vermont utilities in question before pushing the stenographed piece out of the door. That may well
have been because the lead editorial of that day was warning of Putin hacking the U.S. electricity
network and (again) hitting at Trump:
For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even
if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned
of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids
or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was
anticipated.
Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat
that when alluding to it?
The editorial also pushed a bunch of wholly invented conspiracy theories:
Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience
in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions.
But darker suspicions persist. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to be transparent about his multibillion-dollar
business empire. Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed
during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives? We
would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the face of
a clear threat from Russia , matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect,
cannot be easily explained .
During the election campaign WaPo was the news paper with the most anti-Trump screeds on its neoconned
editorial page. That actually helped Trump by making him the obvious anti-Neocon candidate. But "Pearl
Harbor" comparisons and "darker suspicions" beat even the most stupid earlier pieces on him.
I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders,
the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic
National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump"
train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies
are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting
the New
Red Scare .
But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a "
report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council
while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include
2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect
a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed
to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest
is also what
it does not say .
The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia.
But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide
range of other malicious actors , especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian . It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.
There is your "Russian hack" the DHS and FBI claim hit the DNC servers and WaPo falsely claimed
hit the U.S. electricity grid. A run-of-the-mill hack through freely available servers with old Ukrainian
malware just like the hundred-thousand others that happen each day.
... ... ...
But if you, like me, believe the word of former British ambassador Craig Murray who works with
Wikileaks, there was no hack at all. The DNC data came
via an insider who had direct access to them. They were handed to Craig for publishing by Wikileaks.
The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming
President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat"
claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry
and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington
Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner.
These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that.
There really are no words for the stupidity, small-mindedness, and mendacity of the Washington
Post, NYT, and CNN (to name but three of the hacks that report on behalf of the powers-that-be)
these days. I mean, they were always bad but they are continually striking new lows as if they
were the inverse of the US stock market.
Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit 100
31 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However
events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice
been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly
Iraqi WMD and now the "Russian hacks".
Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as "proof" provides anything of the
sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical
Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email.
It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted
NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore
inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and
they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able
to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions
took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses.
In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this
kind of definite evidence.
Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission
to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter
of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails
to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available,
it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.
Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers
from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the
DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these
particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government,
let alone Putin.
There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks. The report is, frankly,
a pile of complete and utter dross. To base grave accusations of election hacking on this report
is ludicrous. Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually
every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion
and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the
expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful. The very pettiness
of Obama's tongue out to Putin – minor sanctions and expelling some diplomatic families – itself
shows that Obama is lying about the pretext. If he really believed that Russia had "hacked the
election", surely that would require a much less feeble response. By refusing to retaliate, Russia
has shown the kind of polish that eludes Obama as he takes his empty charisma and presentational
skills into a no doubt lucrative future in the private sector.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/comment-page-1/#comments
b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets
and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations.
...'
so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible
by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ...
idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in
new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain
for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose.
tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ...
these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq,
libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows
he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well, two
out of three of the f*ked up f's, against the fusiliers.
the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition
of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century
lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for
that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain.
may 2017 be the year of their abject collapse and may they all, including especially their
nobel peace prize laureate, live forever in infamy.
the vermont utility scam is just that. the
last link within
that quoted above points to
a
graphic from
politico that is very informative : while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats
- the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming'
scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in
the us federal government - do so. in other words, only the scammers themselves claim to
'believe' their own scam.
the tnc msm : sound and fury signifying nothing. officially.
3) "Boxing in" the Trump Administration? (spoiling the supposed Trump-Putin love fest)
4) Another ploy to unseat Trump? Does trumped-up conflict with Russia mean that the
supposed Trump-Putin love fest causes an inability to discharge office of President as per
the
25th Amendment ?
5) All of the above?
6) Something else?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Note:VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports
the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.
@11 jr, 'VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP
(aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.'
that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to
kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him!
let us hope that we can all soon stand over the cia's collective graves till we're sure that
they're dead.
the demoblicans and the tnc msm : the new minority making great sounds and demonstrating great
fury yet eating their own dog food and signifying nothing.
sorry, due to your unconventional posting style i had thought it was yourself and not craig
murray who was in contact with william blinney. i see my error now.
The faked news phenom is IMO the result of the US higher education culture finally producing the
critical mass of self-entitled narcissistic punks to flood the airwaves with "useful" tripe. Put
profit before performance and this is what you get. The only thing I use print media for is lining
rabbit cages.
May the new year be safe and prosperous for fellow bar-dwellers and friends. Bottoms up.
The Guardian is continuing with the claims that Russia is responsible for the malware found
in that laptop by adding a little detail that the malware contained code used by the Russians.
They do at least tell the reader that the laptop was not connected to the grid.
This anti-Russian propaganda is getting more extreme by the day. greenwald is collecting many
examples on his twitter feed.
Happy New Year to all. It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack
Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise
there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White
House and the Anglo American mainstream media.
I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove
their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they
are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family.
The WaPo's deceit on this story can't be over-emphasized. The original report by Juliet Eilperin
and Adam Entous was dated Dec30. Then their lies about hacking the grid were exposed and they
re-wrote the article.
The WaPo did not just publish a correction with an update date, they republished the article
under the new headline and under a new date, Dec31. At the bottom of the current article there
is an editor's note referring to an "earlier version" of the article and acknowledging the lie
about penetrating the grid. But the significance of the re-write is not obvious from the editor's
note or the new headline. Compare the second paragraphs of each version, for instance.
Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the
internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it
over and started turning it into a tabloid.
Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election
amounted to an "act of war."
The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has
scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus
on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday.
McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized
the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient
and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia,
after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on
guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the
right direction.
Back door to war ... the way Roosevelt got us into WWII ... along with a whole string of alleged
attacks on the most aggressive and hate filled empire the world has ever known. The Kahns of central
Asia, the Romans at their most vicious, could have learned a lot of pure nastiness from the long
string of American 'wars for empire' going from the New England and Virginia plantations to the
present.
We hack, that is good. They (might have) hacked, that is bad. Sick ...
Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not
worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter
submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike
temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS.
I, as a harsh critic of Trump incoherent style must admit that Obama's abhorrent behavior made
Trump look like statesman.
Obama unnecessarily, senselessly, horribly embarrassed the office of POTUS and destroyed any
chance for another African American to be near the WH for another century. And what for?
For sore looser claims that elections were rigged against Hillary because of Podesta email
hack? That's the nonsense, the only document rigging attempt was DHS in few states.
People must understand that any information could influence a voter but as long it is true
it is legal and acceptable element of electoral process. It is an act of due influence performed
by all candidates themselves, their campaigns as well as supporting special interests, investigative
journalists and independent bloggers who work to reveal true picture of a candidate in relation
to their qualifications, skills, experience and moral values that would inform his/her choices
in office.
Only proliferated lies may be construed as "unduly" influencing public but only if not countered
by the publishing the truth and evidence for it.
Podesta emails told the truth about Hillary and her insidious or even illegal manipulation
of the primaries and her attitude of entitlement informed by her imperial hubris and likely illegal
money manipulation. So told the truth disclosed of Trump scandals with Trump University or sexual
harassment or bankruptcies.
And for that reason alone [the truth in Podesta emails] there could be no connection between
elections outcome and alleged Russia hacks.
Hacks themselves even if true but no evidence presented as of yet, would have been a minor
episode, worth of a brief headline especially when it is US and Israel who are real cyber aggressors.
Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections,
the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before
Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen.
Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to
have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would
have gone to jail.
That the U.S. is helpless in the face for foreign technology that information would be
kept top secret while a huge effort would be initiated to catch up. The vulnerability would not
be broadcast, you can be sure.
Probably nowhere has critical thinking been more effectively stamped out than in the American
public. Gradually, however -- I think -- people in the U.S. are slowly beginning to awake from
their comfortable stupor.
The alleged Russian US hack is plainly a straw man distraction designed to divert the inquiring
public.s attention away from the actual contents of the KKKLinton, DNC, Podesta, et al, emails.
Same goes for the alleged Russian hacking of the US Presidential Election. Another childish misdirection
play.
Alternate medias have taken the bait hook, line unt sinker. Rather than concentrate on the
actual contents of the emails which reveal immense crimes including war crimes, crimes against
humanity and Treason the so called independent medias waste their time like dogs chasing their
own tails pursing information that to a computer literate audience would find laughable. THERE
WAS NO HACK OF THE GRID.
Get on to the publishing and dissemination of these emails rather than dancing for the self
appointed 'Chess Masters' of the Great Game.
Great post B. MSM born #Fakenews is the gift that just keeps on giving. So much mileage left.
Viewing decay has never been so enjoyable.
@8 mauisurfer
Fantastic reading. Indeed, if Trump wants to win back public faith in the NSA, he'll get on his
hands and knees and grovel to bring back a true yank patriot in Binney
Amid the cornucopia of persuasive evidence that the barking mad neocons are barking up the wrong
tree, this one pushes all the right buttons for me (given that only idiots allow themselves to
think that Russians are incompetent fools).
John McAfee (now often nutty but right in this):
"If it looks like the Russians did it I can guarantee you it wasn't the Russians".
>>>> CHRISTINNE RADU | Dec 31, 2016 6:12:33 PM | 32
The Daily Mail featured on the
World at One on the BBC
today starting at about 23:28 in.
There is also a snippet at 16:10 about ISIS's avowed aim the break up the EU. Which is more important
to the US? A stable EU or pushing regime change in Moscow. Putin has made it very clear that he
wants a stable EU. So what's the problem?
These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence"
at the wall that will stick.
However, it is obvious that the operating systems are not secure and cybersecurity efforts
are not working.
While it looks like the DNC/email thing is the result of leaks not hacks and that Seth Rich
may have been murdered for this, the reality is that govt/banking/businesses have endangered us
by making our information vulnerable and then blaming those who get in when they leave the door
open.
After the OPM data thefts, I asked my congressmen why such important data was put on the internet
when they know they cannot protect it. I received form letters saying they took cybersecurity
seriously and they believe the Chinese did it.
A non-answer if ever there was one. Back then I didn't care if a govt went after Microsoft
as a monopoly when it should go after it for providing vulnerable systems to the govt (and the
rest of us) in the first place.
In the internet's startups and non-profits, security was not taken as seriously as just getting
some kind of system to work.
"In the late 1990s, when the utilities' vulnerabilities first came to light, Richard Clarke,
then the White House counterterrorism chief, proposed imposing mandatory cybersecurity requirements
on all industries connected to critical infrastructure. The companies lobbied against his plan,
as did President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, who warned that the measures would cripple
these companies' competitiveness in the global market. Clarke also suggested putting the government
and critical-infrastructure industries on a parallel internet, which would be wired to certain
agencies that could detect intrusions. This plan was leaked and denounced as 'Orwellian.'"
This current accusation of Russians hacking US utilities may be so much BS and propaganda.
But the US/Israeli STUXNET attack on Iran proved that some things should be protected.
wow, friendly relations with other countries and potential business interests are bad? and would
lead to a flaky electric grid in Vermont... because... ??
our electric grids suck because of the friendly f-ing relations with our own bloodthirsty companies
right here in the US. same for our lousy failing healthcare that only feeds the fat faces of the
private owners...
our freeways in Silicon Valley are lined with homeless people right now who are freezing at
night, in a city that would shut off the outdoor outlets near city hall so that homeless disabled
people will push their wheelchairs someplace else. the Bezos bozos are so out of touch. we know
who to blame.
The report is clearly a fake. The authors are totally incompetent. They claim that CHOPSTICK is
a Russian Intelligence Service Actor. It is so blatanly clear to anyone with any knowledge of
international security threats that CHOPSTICK is Chinese.
Nott has form. His wife was highly placed in the Institute of Strategic Studies (a connected
thinktank), and she now runs the Nott Foundation, a charity which finances and organises training
in disaster medicine. I wonder if they get a good deal on bulk purchases of white helmets?
Is Obama dumb enough to attempt an executive order, which might, for example, claim that Russia
had significantly affected the presidential elections and falsely maintain his own presidency?
So an actual coup? Everything the US does abroad works its way back home eventually, so I would
not put it past his handlers to try it. The alternative would be to murder Trump. Either way,
the US could then go into Ukraine-style meltdown.
This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for
stodgy journalism. Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms
that sounded comparatively measured and adult, not like hysterical kids on a
playground.
I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been
watching a lot of MSNBC and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't
believe how over the top they are about the Russian hacking story – it
goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news
period and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the
time? I have no idea why this is going on about the Russian hacking
unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions about
Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators
too are in on this? They make it sound very serious and yet it seems
everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.
Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the
fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons,
not to mention allowing them to slip into hiding without any real effort made
to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence that we are now
engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been
granted dispensation to go public.
Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were
really just poor souls who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for
their families and were, therefore, only too happy to embrace the joys of
American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence that similar
fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention
throughout Europe.
But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum,
and besides most of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that
stuff. Right?
From
thehill
.com
-
December 29, 2016 10:07 PM
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Who can believe them? Why is NSA silent? Their
"evidence" is flimsy, based on hearsay. Obama's
cybernetic false flag has been created to sway over
Trump's future foreign policy at best, seeking to
perpetuate the neocons' Russophobic approach. Or worse
to delegitimize Trump's election. Obama/Clinton's game
is to reverse one way or another the electoral result.
With this stratagem now they intend to rally the
die-hard warmongers in the Republican party, and set
the frame for an impeachment. Disgusting.
Re:
Something About This Russia Story Stinks by Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone. Looks like
Tabbi is on something. Obama has a lot to hide to the fact that Trump will enter White house in 2017 is really disconcerting
for him. So attempt to tie Trump into anti-Russian hysteria might be kind of Hail Mary pass.
Notable quotes:
"... "The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes. ..."
"... "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website." ..."
"... Over 40 million 'attacks' a day, on just three entities. Bollocks. 'Attack' is far too dramatic a word for a port probe. ..."
"... Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside, she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career. ..."
"... The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it. ..."
"... And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do. ..."
"... I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces. All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre. ..."
"... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
"... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
"... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis,
back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal
the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or
is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be
underplaying or overplaying his hand.
I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security
state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says
to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact,
they refuse to accept it and him.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
"The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like
Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by
a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.
"The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship
with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."
'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various
actors:
The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.
The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records
10 million hacks a day.
The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.
That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.
Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
=============================================================
WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies
and software companies to make their stuff more secure .
{{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman
and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards"
for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged
to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the
Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}
And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the
laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems
LESS SECURE .
So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:
"I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made
it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things,
but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators
and I will certainly will be over a period of time."
And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long,
and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"
Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently
only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking .
The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump?
Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his
previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians?
Plenty of people
are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim,
Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington
is celebrity.
My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly
less brown nosers.
Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside,
she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career.
This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats"
such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go
to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid).
How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary
primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.
Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary
should have been dumped ages ago.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.
Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump
by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead
to materialize if at all.
If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to
never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements
by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then
this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment.
And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.
Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance
by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria
that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia
like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied.
All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the
citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.
Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why
this?
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive
response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.
Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response
would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware
that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.
And this:
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election.
He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.
Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite
circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.
How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference
in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't
hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all
over them.
As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that.
And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for
a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves
quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning
with Russia with nuclear holocaust.
If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?
Ukraine
Russia
Syria
Venezuela
Honduras
Egypt
Yemen
Iraq
Palestinians
Libya
Paraguay
Turkey?
Brazil?
Argentina?
Thailand?
Hong Kong?
Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable
that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just
wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on
turn watch though.
It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance
than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.
I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something
that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read
critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.
It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would
be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.
On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally
– obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag
when you are using a name that has been used before.
I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report
on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'
"Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him
a bottle!"
So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is
says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And
his face will be like
this .
"warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.
As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss
warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly
worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.
And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something
for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan
interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.
I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for
me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh
Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad
for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted
by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if
the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush
pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but
still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the
Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course
domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away
fast enough.
Your position is obviously different.
And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.
Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism.
My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.
The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power
with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never
let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.
In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed
to be. Feint left, drive right.
With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.
Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people
here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments
section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive"
and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At
the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted
for with them.
Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are
a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with
opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage
conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum;
"Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters
bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation
and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You
may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."
Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1
to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.
It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players
and too many styles. It's just not possible.
Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of
course.
I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive.
He's far from progressive.
I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly
brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.
My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for
which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's
not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.
Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have
performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for
sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.
The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure.
There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than
they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better
than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great
Recession. We have not recovered.
Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for
establishment approval.
The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry
to share this tidbit, but I must:
On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson
Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.
And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe
it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including
Yours Truly.
My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes
later, I left the rally.
Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was
not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?
He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years
to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile
congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.
Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat,
he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged
things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black
guy.
If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost
Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.
The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a
lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you
want to be right?"
.
The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important:
the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And
so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that
tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before
you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage
die on?
..
While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that
what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with
many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've
even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying
habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances.
There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is
justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own
behavior.
======================================================
Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity
can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever
fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.
As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked
us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex,
or party .
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the
articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested
in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to
seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.
If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should
probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.
I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that
results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether
you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles
at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in
pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.
The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or
hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.
And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"?
Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say
that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm
pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was
not something they got her to do.
I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler.
I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people
in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things
blow up in our faces.
All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say.
Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers
mediocre.
You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:
1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President
ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared
by Congress.
2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal
and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture,
and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.
3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered
because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief
in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.
I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing
this tragedy:
Conclusion:
For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the
impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.
Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive
aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.
Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has
instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always
red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie
in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make
something up."
Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the
ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his
Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be
so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.
Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate
and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility.
Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark.
See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was
at fault.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived
(emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.
It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the
intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain
had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried
"hacking."
Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.
I think you're right.
On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly
influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally
subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred
candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.
So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before
Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!
Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet
president.
I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate
as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement
server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big
dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather
than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem
for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think
it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!
Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published
by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone
a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting
websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.
Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently
funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by
the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is
4.1.1b.
I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has
to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting.
VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems
less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S.
Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."
Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials
seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise
on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.
The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am
here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started
checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected
to the grid.
Here's a summary from
emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this
grid story.
The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization*
with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.
Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing
his emails is simply not interfering with the election.
*They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S,
government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.
Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!
Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
All the trade sanctions???
The Chinese import restrictions???
DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this
ACT OF WAR????
Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most
countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm
most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer
many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of
being overwhelmed.
Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement
would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to
block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could
move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would
dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are
threats to every neoliberal promise.
There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal.
Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies
about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code
in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.
Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic
claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the
Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric
Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."
So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric
grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed
the Post's claim were based on fiction.
========================================
Thanks for that marym!
I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress"
that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red
Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now
than it was than .
If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's
origin:
The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress
plugin that protects websites against hacking.
If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among
its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.
Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin,
your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's
annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.
So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!
Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one
week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to
make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian
rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.
Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually
aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think
these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead
they raze the place.
The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor
to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of
gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site
are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.
Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years
ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts
colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into
place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath
them when it happens.
Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where
after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from
the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after
getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually
knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh
was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud
was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."
Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news
stories?
Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an
update in any of the ~posts here on NC.
Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?
For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of
hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.
Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
1) Haiti – a failed state
2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream
media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate
welfare
4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes
completely unpunished
5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
6) Hillary Clinton
7) NAFTA
8) increase in childhood poverty
9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her)
intervened.
While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think
many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important
point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally
effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges.
He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat.
Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this
luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.
"Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat
like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
But what about about an oligarchy?
Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be
an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.
Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY
effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before
it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance"
that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative
democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we
step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.
No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader
and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes
to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one
Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically
(within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances
than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world
leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative
democracy.
Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem
to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.
I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.
So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution,
am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with
autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people
just want to see the world burn.
The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution.
I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.
What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like
I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.
Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?
Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty
of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to
watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve
that or worse.
Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor
their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem
for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus
the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?
I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how
inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just
by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might
be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat
to ALL nations of the world.
And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security
Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
"Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."
Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations
of the world.
How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial
Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?
Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions
of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated
by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.
Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them
back later.
More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost
of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because
we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.
In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.
I don't disagree.
For me, teading the story brought up this segue:
The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull.
Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured
in movies but wow is it something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc
Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian
Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership
may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana
governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to
have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.
For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the
president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback
from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
===================================================================
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many
and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to
continue the very lucrative cold war funding.
I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned
on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should
be punished?"
Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear.
It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion.
But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.
Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain
Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt
Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us
at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).
The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same
difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent
people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .
Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?
Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis
Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's
"conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure
are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."
"Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly
will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the
United States."
If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs
soon enough.
========================================
I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the
people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part
et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As
for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling
that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus
does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naïveté here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
Notable quotes:
"... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
"... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
"... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
"... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
"... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
"... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
"... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
"... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
"... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
When I had heard
in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee,
I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence
community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director
of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this
up.
The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts'
conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the
message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that
spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western
universities.
If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East
on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book
as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.
There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration
with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining
in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events.
That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this
is not a seminal work on
General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly
in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely
define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama
administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.
He supports what he can
tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on
the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us
is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand
that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.
Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize
it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years.
General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and
began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster.
Please buy and read this book!
Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few
Others Do.
To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently
retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms
and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting
sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages,
right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched
and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his
book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As
Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work
appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as
the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think
that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this
is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and
serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points,
which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential
read.
In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and
proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions.
Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately
exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking
of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name.
As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all
too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their
careers.
In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home
and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in
which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter
also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their
mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention
to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.'
Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this,
he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and
a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this
capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage"
on p. 154.)
Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil
war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces.
In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again,
this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures
that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons
of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking
about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric
Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General
Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was
bureaucratic in nature.
The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together
the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea,
Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection
to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out
how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses
how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy"
(p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.
General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually
unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to
the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his
army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan).
He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as
al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine,
General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion
itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that
every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.
Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although
such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn
demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in
the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global
American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy.
General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as
I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts
with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any
unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating
what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that
describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages
127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian
political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the
more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort
to undermine them.
The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works
of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that,
coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment.
Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection
is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence
of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this
book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.
It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that
the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.
The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent
makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away
are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.
My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC
in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and
during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available
for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive
of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.
At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly
lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from
spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.
Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should
read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't
like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at
war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is
not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.
We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no
longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre
of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have
won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for
the good cause of freedom.
My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General
Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!
I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical
Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations
that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world,
ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around
radical interpretations of the Qur'an.
Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there
will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a
religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic
world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire
Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.
If
you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now"
, by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC
Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the
reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion
can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as
apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is
certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative
evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals
and reactionaries of political Islam.
One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more
that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics,"
whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with
the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."
As if there is any relationship
to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where
they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a
label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing
more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of
setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence
of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless,
as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors
who's authority is founded on political Islam.
In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated
via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional
occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems
unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end
state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism
to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological
end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy
seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration
of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems
more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment
to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long
war.
Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes
that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical
MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure,
a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could
see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level
active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind,
Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy
and at most an operational strategy.
Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at
a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions
made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.
We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this
time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states
who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique
perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.
Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is
as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective
through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action
he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.
The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy
in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:
1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.
In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam
because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that
our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy
is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled
reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five
I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral
compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists
thrives.
Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have
the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart
rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who
will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an
outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?
As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation
needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as
described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.
* * *
In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an
educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As
a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the
problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and
General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its
Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.
Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his
views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight
ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot
of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence
is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what
is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind
of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which
is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the
difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical
knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems
unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of
Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence
has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his
world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell
him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic
background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected
and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt
with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.
This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way
with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union
and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the
wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years,
right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of
that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in
this craziness.
To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source
of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches
as well as armed force.
I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where
is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that
Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That
ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that
understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic
abilities.
"... ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? ..."
"... But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat. ..."
"... I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary: ..."
"... The demonization of an entire foreign population. ..."
"... The demonization of a particular foreign person. ..."
"... The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway. ..."
"... The pretense of upholding the rule of law. ..."
"... The pretense of humanitarianism. ..."
"... Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them. ..."
...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney,
Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George
Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either
endorsed or said very
positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? Are the
most rabid war supporters on one side and the most dependable war makers getting
nominated by the other? Well, maybe.
But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly
ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military
is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading
democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because
in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists
on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer
for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to
force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras
and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to,
if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments
is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would
be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them
as human beings, you just might be a Democrat.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is the most dependable war monger nominated by a major
party in the United States in many years. She has the most
consistent and lengthy
record of doing what she's paid to do, of marketing U.S. weaponry abroad,
of manufacturing justifications for wars, of lobbying branches of the U.S. government
and foreign governments to support wars. And she'll do so while keeping up a
pretense of abiding by some selection of laws.
... ... ...
I've studied the marketing
of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United
States include, in order from most to least necessary:
The pretense of a threat to anyone in the United States, most powerfully
if it is a threat of torture or rape or death by hand or knife. It need
not be the least bit realistic.
The demonization of an entire foreign population.
The demonization of a particular foreign person.
Revenge.
The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state
of being already underway.
The pretense of upholding the rule of law.
The pretense of humanitarianism.
Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among
people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work.
Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened
or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political
party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification
slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing
more of them.
Walker, as usual, is just doing his paid job ;-). Bots have no Christmas vacations by definition:
MTavernier,Metronome151,
psygone,
Alderbaran,
MentalToo,
Hektor Uranga, and one
interesting new one Chukuriuk
are all on duty. A deep observation by one of the commenters: "Interesting how all the trolling
comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin..."
What some people doe not understand is that Putin represents a countervailing force to the
US imperial expansionism (and neoliberal expansionism in general). As there is an inherent value in
existence of countervailing force (neocons thing otherwise ;-) Putin deserve some level of support even
if one does not agree with everything he is doing. In a way Putin is more valuable to the USA then to
Russia as he prevents the USA elite from doing extremely stupid thing which were done during Yeltsin
rule which led to overstretching of the US empire and contains seeds its subsequent decline.
Notable quotes:
"... For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it. ..."
"... Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin. ..."
"... Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International law ..."
"... Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of the free press? ..."
"... The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule. ..."
"... Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron. ..."
"... I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing - that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK. ..."
"... Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success. ..."
"... All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position. ..."
"... Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the people who live there. ..."
"... What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment, drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill. ..."
"... This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos he warned us of. ..."
"... However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. ..."
"... Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin... ..."
"... The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't know anything else but what they are fed. ..."
"... If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front of the cameras) ..."
"... They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin. ..."
Words That Change the World is a 400-page compilation of Vladimir Putin's most notable speeches,
and has been sent out to all Russian MPs and other political figures as a gift from the presidential
administration ahead of the country's new year holiday.
Anton Volodin of the pro-Kremlin youth group
Network, which published the book, told the Guardian: "A year ago we noticed when reading one
of his early speeches that it was exactly right in its predictions, so we decided to check all of
his other speeches. And it turns out basically everything he said has either already come true or
is in the process of coming true at this very moment."
There are 19 articles and speeches collected in the book, starting from 2003 and ending with Putin's
speech to the UN general assembly earlier this year. Volodin said: "If you read through them
all, you can see a clear pattern in his rhetoric and thoughts. A lot of people say he's unpredictable
or untruthful, but actually everything he says is transparent, clear and fully formed."
Alderbaran -> Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:21
China's GDP is roughly five times that of Russia and China is already leasing land in Russia's
east. I'm also assuming it is getting a pretty good deal on oil at the moment too - Don't expect
an equal partnership
Russia needs the West, just as the West needs Russia. Do you agree?
Laurence Johnson 28 Dec 2015 16:19
For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes
in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.
Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues
to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace
Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now
the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders
across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception
and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin.
KoreyD -> dyst1111 28 Dec 2015 16:19
Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others
including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International
law
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:18
"If those who had been present at the UN general assembly had listened to Putin's words, the
world would be a very different place. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive and
Europe would not be full of refugees from the middle east."
Of course he was right but of course he wasn't the only one saying these things at the time. Such
a shame our witless leaders didn't listen and perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 15:54
Russia is slowly moving out of the dollar system and Western sanctions will eventually have
little impact on the Russian economy. Russia and China can easily survive and prosper without
the dollar. Unfortunately Europe will lose out massively due to Russia's response to the sanctions
and will continue banning imports from the EU, agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods,
leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Just think what Putin has done even before he started
bombing ISIS. He protects his country, his management of Russia's economy despite international
sanctions are feats that are to be admired. Is it any wonder he is hated and feared by the West.
Fallowfield -> MTavernier 28 Dec 2015 16:16
I'm trying to work this out. Come on, you're not really saying that we have a free press in
the west are you?
I believe it happened once, Watergate and all that. Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of
the free press?
No, you're taking the piss. I'll stop there.
Fallowfield -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 16:10
The people I know were 'the younger generation'. Their illusions about the west were quickly
shattered. Different mafias, you see.
Putin's message? How very unlike our own dear Queen's Speech.
Alderbaran -> SHappens 28 Dec 2015 16:03
A very fair point but you have to admit that a forum saturated with meaningless posts is frustrating
for those who actually want to discuss the article. I feel compelled to challenge a number of
these posters.
Personally I feel that Russia started on a very different track following Putin's return as
president in 2012 and following the Bolotnaya square demonstrations - He was shaken by this!
I see a cult of personality blinding many Russians, including many of the commentators on this
forum and it seems that in Russia what is important is not the facts but nationalism and a shared
identity. This helps to protect Putin from criticism ans shores up his position but it is worrying
when a government relies so much on one man and that there is nothing to indicate that Putin intends
to change this. The publication of a book of speeches by "Network" is yet another indication of
the reliance on this personality cult and to be very frank, it disturbs and saddens me.
Does any of this concern you too, or do you think that this is the best that Russia should
hope for at the moment?
Equidom 28 Dec 2015 16:02
The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't
bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule.
Rantalot 28 Dec 2015 15:42
Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple
of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron.
Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 15:29
I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions
about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing
- that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond
their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK.
They support Putin. Why? KGB indoctrination? Far from it, these are the people who wanted to
get away. And they - just like you - love their homeland. And who protects their homeland? The
President of the USA? The PM of the UK? You must be joking.
Putin. Nobody else.
SHappens -> apacheman 28 Dec 2015 15:26
Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony
up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or
are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success.
All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved
by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful
militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position.
This is part of Putin, and Lavrov's great achievements. Might be worth for you to read this
book after all, you might be learning something.
Alderbaran -> WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 15:20
Who said you were Russian and why did you suggest that you might be if Putin has a lot of support
outside the country?
What surprised me is your apparently unsupportable notion that Putin is trying to make Russia
look amicable. Your post also brought up topics far from the bounds of this article, yet you state
that you don't know what to believe in.
If you are sincere in wanting to understand Russia better, David Remnick's excellent book on
Russia is a great start - see Lenin's Tomb. Chrystia freeland's 'Sale of the Century' brilliantly
describes the Yeltsin years and the power struggles taking place following the fall of the wall.
I'd also recommend listing to Mark Galeotti on the sublect of Russia, and he is a regular conrtibutor
to both RT and RFERL.
Peter Evans -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:10
Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could
choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the
people who live there.
Fallowfield -> CoinBiter 28 Dec 2015 15:09
After the USA, UK and other allied countries had invaded Russia in 1919 the eventual Soviet
Republic did what it could to protect itself I suppose. And Russia still does. Ask where the USA
bases are, and compare their distribution to those of Russia.
The USA didn't fancy one in Cuba, did they? A perfectly lawful international agreement. They
threatened nuclear destruction as an ultimatum.
WalterCronkiteBot -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:04
Yes I'm an evil Russian. I can't possibly be from the west.
To answer your question though, I don't know what to believe hence me stating "What I don't
get with Putin is...". I don't understand the actual situation because I don't have inside knowledge.
I'm saying on the face of it he appears to speak for those in the west against war in the ME,
which is good, but we shouldnt trust him entirely.
If that makes me a Kremlin shill so be it.
Not4TheFaintOfHeart 28 Dec 2015 14:59
Can somebody please tell Shaun to come in from the cold... It's over Shaun: Syria saved from
a Libya/Iraq fate x2, ISIS degraded very nicely, thank you, Crimea voted to be part of the RF,
Mistrals now sold to Egept, BRICS bank created, colour revolution in Georgia thwarted...
What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar
book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment,
drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill.
Fallowfield -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:49
Well we certainly jailed members of the WSPU for wanting to vote. 14 Northern Irish civil rights
protest marchers, legal and unarmed, were shot dead on the street by British troops in 1972, as
I remember. Striking workers have been jailed, and many more have had cases against them dropped
in court for 'lack of evidence', ie when the police evidence presented was so obviously falsified.
I wonder where the KGB got their ideas from?
apacheman -> Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 14:48
And the Soviet people could thank the West for the Lend-Lease supplies that allowed them to
withstand the Nazi juggernaut, without which they would have collapsed.
WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 14:46
"Putin was correct to predict chaos in international affairs if the UN and other institutions
of international law are ignored."
This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious
power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose
out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos
he warned us of.
In 2013 Putin accused Kerry of lying when he told a senate hearing that AQ are not in Syria
and as such pose no threat in that region. He warned us but noone listened. Now we have Syria
overran by AQ affiliated groups toting US made weaponry.
What I don't get with Putin is the apparent naivety. As his speeches show he is well aware
of the machinations of the western powers, yet puts faith in them time and time again. Hes either
very naive or just wants to ensure that Russia look as amicable as possible in the history books.
Peter Evans 28 Dec 2015 14:34
The US loved Yeltsin, a weak leader, they do not like a strong Russian leader who does the
best for his country.
mgeary -> rcil2003 28 Dec 2015 14:33
Oh, the results in the USA are the same as in Russia, the only difference being that they have
a ruling elite there, who promote different faces every election for the Presidency.
This and the fact that, in contrast to Russia, they are being subtle about it...
Chuckman 28 Dec 2015 14:25
The most able leader of our generation. Simply a remarkable man.
This got me pondering on what an equivalent publication for George W Bush would contain. Chapter
One - reading "My Pet Goat".
However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of
wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University
Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. The janitor wasn't best pleased; he had to find a
new broom cupboard...
rcil2003 -> euphoniumbrioche 28 Dec 2015 14:16
western leaders are nothing but interchangeable game show hosts. Behind them is the real power,
wielded in secret by utterly evil characters like Dick Cheney, who would have been right at home
in the Third Reich.
presstheredbutton -> nonanon1 28 Dec 2015 14:15
Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin...
Parangaricurimicuaro -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:20
Now you are giving me the reason. The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't
know anything else but what they are fed.
Parangaricurimicuaro -> hermionegingold 28 Dec 2015 14:01
If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population
you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different
role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front
of the cameras)
greatapedescendant -> Strummered 28 Dec 2015 13:46
They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually
going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin.
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling
two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French
Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.
1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters
Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter
carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less
than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.
"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded
yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.
He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there
were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because
of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.
"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken
for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the
French state.
In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to
do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian
technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President
Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships,
would look for other buyers for the two ships.
"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries
have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.
Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt,
which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.
The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending
at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.
DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French
state.
France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after
coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine
crisis.
The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase
in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who
was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of
the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.
(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Senate to examine financial records of firm behind notorious Trump-Russia dossier
Prof. Cohen: Not One Piece of Factual Evidence That Russia 'Hacked the Election'
© AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta
Dozen Most Insane Statements From US Congress' Hearing on 'Russian Spying'
Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the US
National Intelligence Council, claimed that "fake news" and "trolls" are an "integral
part of Russian foreign policy."
© Flickr/ Tony Swartz
Cheney Seeks to Manipulate Trump 'Splashing Gasoline' Into Election 'Scandal'
Watts cited hashtags such as "God," "constitution," "conservative," and "Trump"
as examples of hashtags used by "Russian trolls." He also claimed that Kremlin
operatives did not stop meddling in American politics after the election, and just
this week engaged in a campaign to smear House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Pixabay
The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues
During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members
of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia,
first in July, and again on Wednesday.
© REUTERS/ Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool
Trump 'Takes Advantageous Position,' Accuses Hillary Clinton of Russia Ties
Another Senate witness, Thomas Rid, professor in the Department of War Studies
at King's College London, strangely asserted that WikiLeaks, Twitter and "over eager
journalists" are all "unwitting Russian agents."
Introduction: There are deep flaws in the blogs, media reports, and official statements, which
purport to describe world historic events and changes.
